I think it's a bit strange that people should be so quick to say the red and blue walls cannot ever be reconciled, when this was achieved just over four years ago at GE 2019. If the polls are anywhere like accurate, then Labour are poised to reconcile three major groups in the electorate - metropolitan liberals, blue labour and conservative swing voters.
These groups are not reconciled due to the oratorical brilliance of Keir-Ends-In-R Starmer, but due to Starmer's success in blandifying the Labour party so as not to put any of the groups off, and the categorical imperative of finding a means for these groups to punish the Tories.
Achieving something in reverse for the Tories requires only a bit of experience of Labour in government, and a Tory leader who isn't trying to actively alienate one part of the voter coalition.
I like your counter to this, with the 2019 evidence to back up your point.
However … those cracks were in the Party for a long time and we kid ourselves to think otherwise. That divide is really what brought down John Major and it didn’t do Margaret Thatcher much good in the end either. It all boiled to the surface when @TSE ’s beloved Davey boy idiotically called the Brexit referendum, thinking in his Old Etonian arrogance that he would pull off the same stunt as indyref.
(If you want to see what a shit Cameron really is then DO read the finale to Suzanne Heywood’s What Does Jeremy Think?)
I still maintain that 2019 was unique. Even I, a remainer, was utterly exasperated at the antics of that Remainer Parliament and at just the right moment along came Boris, someone uniquely gifted at deception to hoodwink the British people. With mellifluous honey-coated lies he pulled in blue and red wall voters. My Surrey tory friend, totally disillusioned now with the Party, STILL ADORES Boris and would vote for him like a shot.
Assuming Boris doesn’t make a Lazarite comeback, there’s no one else of his ilk. Once in a century.
Yes, it's true to say that the splits had been in the Tory party for a long time - but then that is true of any governing party in Britain. There is no single cohesive group of voters that is large enough to win a majority on its own. So it's normal for a governing party to be sustained by a coalition of voters divided amongst itself, and those divisions will obviously come to the fore when the party is generally unpopular.
I don't see anything unusual with what is happening to the Tories now, and so I don't think it requires anything extraordinary to fix the situation.
Indeed, what seems to be a more volatile electorate means that there is potential for the fractured Tory coalition to come back together (very temporarily) more quickly than currently appears possible. The situation facing an incoming Labour government is much more difficult than that encountered in 1997.
Although the Tories have been in government for nearly 14 years now, I think that is misleading. They have had several reinventions in that time, and so the last 14 years have been a lot more like the 1970s, than the long periods of Thatcherite/Blairite rule in the 80s/90s/00s.
Whatever Starmerism turns out to be I would not bet on it lasting that long. It's quite likely to be overturned by something very different, either from within the Labour party, or without, by the end of the decade.
A good response but your last paragraph is a fig leaf I’ve noticed some Conservatives clinging onto i.e. the assumption that Starmer is going to fail.
Whilst I don’t underestimate the magnitude of problems facing this country, and I’m no longer convinced Labour will fix them, I suspect many people will look back on the last 5 years as a horror show they never want to go near again in their lifetime.
I’m beginning to think Labour will be in power for 20 years.
I'm not a Conservative.
We'll see what Starmerism turns out to be - it's really hard to predict because he's shown so little indication of what his approach will be - but I included the possibility of Starmerism being overturned from within the Labour party. Whether Labour is in office for two decades, or not, I do not think Britain is in for a period of stable politics. There are large problems, that are difficult to solve, and a lot of rootless discontent sloshing about the political system as a result.
It could be that the Tory brand, and all the politicians associated with it, is so damaged that the voters won't go near it for a long time, but in that case the voter's discontent will manifest itself through other parties, or through factions within the Labour party. Cameron was PM for 6 years and 64 days. He wasn't brought down because the voters were ready to give Labour another go. I doubt very much that Starmer will have so long, but I don't see the Tories returning so soon either (thank God).
I'm instructing my financial advisor to advise me on protecting my assets against a potential confiscatory very left-wing Labour government.
It's perfectly possible Starmer gets dethroned, in office, for a Left-wing alternative like you say, and they utterly abuse the MP base they have in Parliament.
Well don't put it under your mattress, there appear to a lot of Reds under your bed.
Seriously, I wonder what legal options your financial adviser might suggest? Whatever they are, I'll warrant said IFA will be the only one to profit.
Who knows. One idea is to send some out the country and/or put it in a trusted relatives name.
But that holds risks in itself.
I could see (would vote for) a wealth tax of say 1-2% per annum on assets over say £1m. If that's what you class as 'confiscatory' it would likely cost you a larger percentage to avoid that.
I am genuinely intrigued that you fear such a threat.
No, much worse than that.
Go on - what does 'much worse than that' look like? What do you think is really a possibility at shall we say a >5% chance?
In West London, this level of property tax would push out anyone who wasn’t poor or on over £100k. Including those renting.
There are huge numbers of people who live there from the times before property went mad. Hence the interesting patch work of the redone houses with the expensive cars next to the down at heel looking places with the hatchback.
Increasing people’s bills by £1k a month would make the poll tax riots look tame.
I should have said, as I did in my next post, 'the exclusion of a principal private residence would be sensible.'
The problem then is that putting money into property becomes, even more, the way to store wealth.
And round we go.
That won't drive up house prices though - lack of supply does that.
Build more houses and it won't matter if people want to put more money into their private residence, the value will be dictated by supply and demand.
I’ve begun to despair about house building. Nimbyism appears to unite the country in a way little else does. Rich and poor, Brexit and remain, left and right. All have this same muscle reflex to object to any proposed development. Even the relatively young are at it round here.
The thing is so all pervading that I hide my quiet yimbyism from the neighbours for fear of being considered a traitor.
I think the NIMBYism is exacerbated by the lack of public services. It's hard to argue for more housing when you can't even provide an NHS dentist for the existing population.
Even LTNs are a reaction to more housing, as previously quiet neighbourhoods become ratruns for new ones.
Around here it’s not that. It’s pure aesthetics. People not wanting their nice view across the rooftops spoiled by a new building.
Blue Wall = affluent oldies, well paid finance workers
Red Wall = affluent oldies, well paid tradesmen
Common features = high levels of home ownership, few students, above average age, below average ethnic minorities
They're actually pretty similar.
What has damaged the Conservatives is the same as what damaged them before 1997:
Do as I say not as I do hypocrisy Financial and sexual sleaze Having an economic strategy fall apart - ERM / Dizzy Lizzy and Krazi Kwarzi Self-obsessed internal arguments Time for a change fatigue
And a decade long retreat from governing the country.
For reasons both self-inflicted and "events" there has been little to no evidence of "the business of government" going on. Policies proposed and enacted and the impact felt.
You can get away with it for a while, but eventually it plays to the mood that they aren't "doing anything for me/my family" especially when the things they *are* doing don't seem to positively affect any/many of your top issues.
I’m amazed parts of the red wall stayed red for so long. Lots of home ownership. Nice new build estates. Fair bit of disposable income. Not all of the red wall, only parts of it.
With Labour still enjoying a double-digit lead in the polls, Starmer’s most senior advisers remain obsessed with guarding against complacency as the election draws nearer. However, the growing likelihood of a Labour-led government has seen shadow ministers step up their preparations for power.
The dinners have been chaired by Baroness Sally Morgan, one of Tony Blair’s key advisers at the height of New Labour’s popularity. They have also been attended by Sue Gray, the Whitehall veteran who is now Starmer’s chief of staff...
Might be an idea to eat our own beef, and support British farming, rather than ship meat from the other side of the world.
Just an idea.
And, as a consumer, you absolutely have that choice. Buy British.
Unfortunately, meat-shaming is a massive thing in Met circles now. It's probably the thing, alongside "Diversity™", that comes up most often.
Back in the 1980s when this leftie traitor was flying the flag for the British motor industry in my Cortinas, Escorts, Itals and Cavaliers all my Tory friends were living it large in their Golf and 205GTIs.
I think it's a bit strange that people should be so quick to say the red and blue walls cannot ever be reconciled, when this was achieved just over four years ago at GE 2019. If the polls are anywhere like accurate, then Labour are poised to reconcile three major groups in the electorate - metropolitan liberals, blue labour and conservative swing voters.
These groups are not reconciled due to the oratorical brilliance of Keir-Ends-In-R Starmer, but due to Starmer's success in blandifying the Labour party so as not to put any of the groups off, and the categorical imperative of finding a means for these groups to punish the Tories.
Achieving something in reverse for the Tories requires only a bit of experience of Labour in government, and a Tory leader who isn't trying to actively alienate one part of the voter coalition.
I like your counter to this, with the 2019 evidence to back up your point.
However … those cracks were in the Party for a long time and we kid ourselves to think otherwise. That divide is really what brought down John Major and it didn’t do Margaret Thatcher much good in the end either. It all boiled to the surface when @TSE ’s beloved Davey boy idiotically called the Brexit referendum, thinking in his Old Etonian arrogance that he would pull off the same stunt as indyref.
(If you want to see what a shit Cameron really is then DO read the finale to Suzanne Heywood’s What Does Jeremy Think?)
I still maintain that 2019 was unique. Even I, a remainer, was utterly exasperated at the antics of that Remainer Parliament and at just the right moment along came Boris, someone uniquely gifted at deception to hoodwink the British people. With mellifluous honey-coated lies he pulled in blue and red wall voters. My Surrey tory friend, totally disillusioned now with the Party, STILL ADORES Boris and would vote for him like a shot.
Assuming Boris doesn’t make a Lazarite comeback, there’s no one else of his ilk. Once in a century.
Yes, it's true to say that the splits had been in the Tory party for a long time - but then that is true of any governing party in Britain. There is no single cohesive group of voters that is large enough to win a majority on its own. So it's normal for a governing party to be sustained by a coalition of voters divided amongst itself, and those divisions will obviously come to the fore when the party is generally unpopular.
I don't see anything unusual with what is happening to the Tories now, and so I don't think it requires anything extraordinary to fix the situation.
Indeed, what seems to be a more volatile electorate means that there is potential for the fractured Tory coalition to come back together (very temporarily) more quickly than currently appears possible. The situation facing an incoming Labour government is much more difficult than that encountered in 1997.
Although the Tories have been in government for nearly 14 years now, I think that is misleading. They have had several reinventions in that time, and so the last 14 years have been a lot more like the 1970s, than the long periods of Thatcherite/Blairite rule in the 80s/90s/00s.
Whatever Starmerism turns out to be I would not bet on it lasting that long. It's quite likely to be overturned by something very different, either from within the Labour party, or without, by the end of the decade.
A good response but your last paragraph is a fig leaf I’ve noticed some Conservatives clinging onto i.e. the assumption that Starmer is going to fail.
Whilst I don’t underestimate the magnitude of problems facing this country, and I’m no longer convinced Labour will fix them, I suspect many people will look back on the last 5 years as a horror show they never want to go near again in their lifetime.
I’m beginning to think Labour will be in power for 20 years.
I'm not a Conservative.
We'll see what Starmerism turns out to be - it's really hard to predict because he's shown so little indication of what his approach will be - but I included the possibility of Starmerism being overturned from within the Labour party. Whether Labour is in office for two decades, or not, I do not think Britain is in for a period of stable politics. There are large problems, that are difficult to solve, and a lot of rootless discontent sloshing about the political system as a result.
It could be that the Tory brand, and all the politicians associated with it, is so damaged that the voters won't go near it for a long time, but in that case the voter's discontent will manifest itself through other parties, or through factions within the Labour party. Cameron was PM for 6 years and 64 days. He wasn't brought down because the voters were ready to give Labour another go. I doubt very much that Starmer will have so long, but I don't see the Tories returning so soon either (thank God).
I'm instructing my financial advisor to advise me on protecting my assets against a potential confiscatory very left-wing Labour government.
It's perfectly possible Starmer gets dethroned, in office, for a Left-wing alternative like you say, and they utterly abuse the MP base they have in Parliament.
Well don't put it under your mattress, there appear to a lot of Reds under your bed.
Seriously, I wonder what legal options your financial adviser might suggest? Whatever they are, I'll warrant said IFA will be the only one to profit.
Who knows. One idea is to send some out the country and/or put it in a trusted relatives name.
But that holds risks in itself.
I could see (would vote for) a wealth tax of say 1-2% per annum on assets over say £1m. If that's what you class as 'confiscatory' it would likely cost you a larger percentage to avoid that.
I am genuinely intrigued that you fear such a threat.
No, much worse than that.
Go on - what does 'much worse than that' look like? What do you think is really a possibility at shall we say a >5% chance?
In West London, this level of property tax would push out anyone who wasn’t poor or on over £100k. Including those renting.
There are huge numbers of people who live there from the times before property went mad. Hence the interesting patch work of the redone houses with the expensive cars next to the down at heel looking places with the hatchback.
Increasing people’s bills by £1k a month would make the poll tax riots look tame.
I should have said, as I did in my next post, 'the exclusion of a principal private residence would be sensible.'
The problem then is that putting money into property becomes, even more, the way to store wealth.
And round we go.
That won't drive up house prices though - lack of supply does that.
Build more houses and it won't matter if people want to put more money into their private residence, the value will be dictated by supply and demand.
I’ve begun to despair about house building. Nimbyism appears to unite the country in a way little else does. Rich and poor, Brexit and remain, left and right. All have this same muscle reflex to object to any proposed development. Even the relatively young are at it round here.
The thing is so all pervading that I hide my quiet yimbyism from the neighbours for fear of being considered a traitor.
I'd object if (when!) they want to build houses on the playing field behind me, but welcome the new flats currently being built just up the road, and further along into the next borough, and in the town centre. I'm not entirely sure about local shops being turned into flats, which is also happening, because it means (obviously) fewer local shops.
But what we need nationally is new towns, not to build over London's green belt in an already overheated region of the most economically unbalanced country in Europe.
I think it's a bit strange that people should be so quick to say the red and blue walls cannot ever be reconciled, when this was achieved just over four years ago at GE 2019. If the polls are anywhere like accurate, then Labour are poised to reconcile three major groups in the electorate - metropolitan liberals, blue labour and conservative swing voters.
These groups are not reconciled due to the oratorical brilliance of Keir-Ends-In-R Starmer, but due to Starmer's success in blandifying the Labour party so as not to put any of the groups off, and the categorical imperative of finding a means for these groups to punish the Tories.
Achieving something in reverse for the Tories requires only a bit of experience of Labour in government, and a Tory leader who isn't trying to actively alienate one part of the voter coalition.
I like your counter to this, with the 2019 evidence to back up your point.
However … those cracks were in the Party for a long time and we kid ourselves to think otherwise. That divide is really what brought down John Major and it didn’t do Margaret Thatcher much good in the end either. It all boiled to the surface when @TSE ’s beloved Davey boy idiotically called the Brexit referendum, thinking in his Old Etonian arrogance that he would pull off the same stunt as indyref.
(If you want to see what a shit Cameron really is then DO read the finale to Suzanne Heywood’s What Does Jeremy Think?)
I still maintain that 2019 was unique. Even I, a remainer, was utterly exasperated at the antics of that Remainer Parliament and at just the right moment along came Boris, someone uniquely gifted at deception to hoodwink the British people. With mellifluous honey-coated lies he pulled in blue and red wall voters. My Surrey tory friend, totally disillusioned now with the Party, STILL ADORES Boris and would vote for him like a shot.
Assuming Boris doesn’t make a Lazarite comeback, there’s no one else of his ilk. Once in a century.
Yes, it's true to say that the splits had been in the Tory party for a long time - but then that is true of any governing party in Britain. There is no single cohesive group of voters that is large enough to win a majority on its own. So it's normal for a governing party to be sustained by a coalition of voters divided amongst itself, and those divisions will obviously come to the fore when the party is generally unpopular.
I don't see anything unusual with what is happening to the Tories now, and so I don't think it requires anything extraordinary to fix the situation.
Indeed, what seems to be a more volatile electorate means that there is potential for the fractured Tory coalition to come back together (very temporarily) more quickly than currently appears possible. The situation facing an incoming Labour government is much more difficult than that encountered in 1997.
Although the Tories have been in government for nearly 14 years now, I think that is misleading. They have had several reinventions in that time, and so the last 14 years have been a lot more like the 1970s, than the long periods of Thatcherite/Blairite rule in the 80s/90s/00s.
Whatever Starmerism turns out to be I would not bet on it lasting that long. It's quite likely to be overturned by something very different, either from within the Labour party, or without, by the end of the decade.
A good response but your last paragraph is a fig leaf I’ve noticed some Conservatives clinging onto i.e. the assumption that Starmer is going to fail.
Whilst I don’t underestimate the magnitude of problems facing this country, and I’m no longer convinced Labour will fix them, I suspect many people will look back on the last 5 years as a horror show they never want to go near again in their lifetime.
I’m beginning to think Labour will be in power for 20 years.
I'm not a Conservative.
We'll see what Starmerism turns out to be - it's really hard to predict because he's shown so little indication of what his approach will be - but I included the possibility of Starmerism being overturned from within the Labour party. Whether Labour is in office for two decades, or not, I do not think Britain is in for a period of stable politics. There are large problems, that are difficult to solve, and a lot of rootless discontent sloshing about the political system as a result.
It could be that the Tory brand, and all the politicians associated with it, is so damaged that the voters won't go near it for a long time, but in that case the voter's discontent will manifest itself through other parties, or through factions within the Labour party. Cameron was PM for 6 years and 64 days. He wasn't brought down because the voters were ready to give Labour another go. I doubt very much that Starmer will have so long, but I don't see the Tories returning so soon either (thank God).
I'm instructing my financial advisor to advise me on protecting my assets against a potential confiscatory very left-wing Labour government.
It's perfectly possible Starmer gets dethroned, in office, for a Left-wing alternative like you say, and they utterly abuse the MP base they have in Parliament.
Well don't put it under your mattress, there appear to a lot of Reds under your bed.
Seriously, I wonder what legal options your financial adviser might suggest? Whatever they are, I'll warrant said IFA will be the only one to profit.
Who knows. One idea is to send some out the country and/or put it in a trusted relatives name.
But that holds risks in itself.
I could see (would vote for) a wealth tax of say 1-2% per annum on assets over say £1m. If that's what you class as 'confiscatory' it would likely cost you a larger percentage to avoid that.
I am genuinely intrigued that you fear such a threat.
No, much worse than that.
Go on - what does 'much worse than that' look like? What do you think is really a possibility at shall we say a >5% chance?
In West London, this level of property tax would push out anyone who wasn’t poor or on over £100k. Including those renting.
There are huge numbers of people who live there from the times before property went mad. Hence the interesting patch work of the redone houses with the expensive cars next to the down at heel looking places with the hatchback.
Increasing people’s bills by £1k a month would make the poll tax riots look tame.
I should have said, as I did in my next post, 'the exclusion of a principal private residence would be sensible.'
The problem then is that putting money into property becomes, even more, the way to store wealth.
And round we go.
That won't drive up house prices though - lack of supply does that.
Build more houses and it won't matter if people want to put more money into their private residence, the value will be dictated by supply and demand.
I’ve begun to despair about house building. Nimbyism appears to unite the country in a way little else does. Rich and poor, Brexit and remain, left and right. All have this same muscle reflex to object to any proposed development. Even the relatively young are at it round here.
The thing is so all pervading that I hide my quiet yimbyism from the neighbours for fear of being considered a traitor.
I think the NIMBYism is exacerbated by the lack of public services. It's hard to argue for more housing when you can't even provide an NHS dentist for the existing population.
Even LTNs are a reaction to more housing, as previously quiet neighbourhoods become ratruns for new ones.
Around here it’s not that. It’s pure aesthetics. People not wanting their nice view across the rooftops spoiled by a new building.
I'm not suggesting it's the only reason. It's either a contributory factor, or a convenient mask for NIMBYism. It's impossible to argue against though, as I've witnessed in a few council meetings.
Longshot but... Has anyone used the Austrian Rail (OBB) Nightjet sleeper service?
Looking to book the Paris - Vienna sleeper for September but tickets only seem bookable until May, although their website says they open six months in advance.
The Man at Seat 61 says this...
Austrian Railways (ÖBB, www.oebb.at) open bookings up to 6 months ahead, including international trains and their Nightjet sleeper trains. However, for international routes to/from Austria it depends on their partner railway. ÖBB's Paris-Vienna, Brussels-Vienna & Amsterdam-Vienna Nightjet sleepers may only open for booking 2-4 months ahead. see https://www.seat61.com/european-train-booking-horizons.htm
I think it's a bit strange that people should be so quick to say the red and blue walls cannot ever be reconciled, when this was achieved just over four years ago at GE 2019. If the polls are anywhere like accurate, then Labour are poised to reconcile three major groups in the electorate - metropolitan liberals, blue labour and conservative swing voters.
These groups are not reconciled due to the oratorical brilliance of Keir-Ends-In-R Starmer, but due to Starmer's success in blandifying the Labour party so as not to put any of the groups off, and the categorical imperative of finding a means for these groups to punish the Tories.
Achieving something in reverse for the Tories requires only a bit of experience of Labour in government, and a Tory leader who isn't trying to actively alienate one part of the voter coalition.
I like your counter to this, with the 2019 evidence to back up your point.
However … those cracks were in the Party for a long time and we kid ourselves to think otherwise. That divide is really what brought down John Major and it didn’t do Margaret Thatcher much good in the end either. It all boiled to the surface when @TSE ’s beloved Davey boy idiotically called the Brexit referendum, thinking in his Old Etonian arrogance that he would pull off the same stunt as indyref.
(If you want to see what a shit Cameron really is then DO read the finale to Suzanne Heywood’s What Does Jeremy Think?)
I still maintain that 2019 was unique. Even I, a remainer, was utterly exasperated at the antics of that Remainer Parliament and at just the right moment along came Boris, someone uniquely gifted at deception to hoodwink the British people. With mellifluous honey-coated lies he pulled in blue and red wall voters. My Surrey tory friend, totally disillusioned now with the Party, STILL ADORES Boris and would vote for him like a shot.
Assuming Boris doesn’t make a Lazarite comeback, there’s no one else of his ilk. Once in a century.
Yes, it's true to say that the splits had been in the Tory party for a long time - but then that is true of any governing party in Britain. There is no single cohesive group of voters that is large enough to win a majority on its own. So it's normal for a governing party to be sustained by a coalition of voters divided amongst itself, and those divisions will obviously come to the fore when the party is generally unpopular.
I don't see anything unusual with what is happening to the Tories now, and so I don't think it requires anything extraordinary to fix the situation.
Indeed, what seems to be a more volatile electorate means that there is potential for the fractured Tory coalition to come back together (very temporarily) more quickly than currently appears possible. The situation facing an incoming Labour government is much more difficult than that encountered in 1997.
Although the Tories have been in government for nearly 14 years now, I think that is misleading. They have had several reinventions in that time, and so the last 14 years have been a lot more like the 1970s, than the long periods of Thatcherite/Blairite rule in the 80s/90s/00s.
Whatever Starmerism turns out to be I would not bet on it lasting that long. It's quite likely to be overturned by something very different, either from within the Labour party, or without, by the end of the decade.
A good response but your last paragraph is a fig leaf I’ve noticed some Conservatives clinging onto i.e. the assumption that Starmer is going to fail.
Whilst I don’t underestimate the magnitude of problems facing this country, and I’m no longer convinced Labour will fix them, I suspect many people will look back on the last 5 years as a horror show they never want to go near again in their lifetime.
I’m beginning to think Labour will be in power for 20 years.
I'm not a Conservative.
We'll see what Starmerism turns out to be - it's really hard to predict because he's shown so little indication of what his approach will be - but I included the possibility of Starmerism being overturned from within the Labour party. Whether Labour is in office for two decades, or not, I do not think Britain is in for a period of stable politics. There are large problems, that are difficult to solve, and a lot of rootless discontent sloshing about the political system as a result.
It could be that the Tory brand, and all the politicians associated with it, is so damaged that the voters won't go near it for a long time, but in that case the voter's discontent will manifest itself through other parties, or through factions within the Labour party. Cameron was PM for 6 years and 64 days. He wasn't brought down because the voters were ready to give Labour another go. I doubt very much that Starmer will have so long, but I don't see the Tories returning so soon either (thank God).
I'm instructing my financial advisor to advise me on protecting my assets against a potential confiscatory very left-wing Labour government.
It's perfectly possible Starmer gets dethroned, in office, for a Left-wing alternative like you say, and they utterly abuse the MP base they have in Parliament.
Well don't put it under your mattress, there appear to a lot of Reds under your bed.
Seriously, I wonder what legal options your financial adviser might suggest? Whatever they are, I'll warrant said IFA will be the only one to profit.
Who knows. One idea is to send some out the country and/or put it in a trusted relatives name.
But that holds risks in itself.
I could see (would vote for) a wealth tax of say 1-2% per annum on assets over say £1m. If that's what you class as 'confiscatory' it would likely cost you a larger percentage to avoid that.
I am genuinely intrigued that you fear such a threat.
The problem is that taxation is 'progressive' - and not in the way you or I normally mean. What starts with a tax just on assets over 1 million quickly becomes a tax on 500K, then 200K and then on all assets over a nominal value including your family home. This is what we see in many places which do have wealth taxes and is sure to be the way things progress here. Much like authoritarian laws, once you have put them in place not only is it very difficult toget rid of them but they are pernicious and spread to areas you never intended.
Wouldn't the same argument have applied when Income Tax was first introduced? And yet we have a personal allowance with no ICT and various other exemptions.
With a wealth tax, the reasons why it would be impossible to introduce it an all assets are a) the administrative overheads would be impossibly high, and b) it would be politically unacceptable.
The exclusion of a principal private residence would be sensible. Beyond that, yes I could see the personal allowance could come down in time but each time it's reduced the government will take a popularity hit, as they would if they reduced the ICT personal allowance to say £5k.
Even so, it's got to come. If not now, in the next decade. Rising pension and social care costs make it inevitable.
When I come tax was introduced, the promise was only the rich would pay.
Some years ago, a carpenter doing some work for me asked if I could make sense of his tax. He thought the extra money he was earning should end up as more in his pocket.
Yes, he’d become a higher rate tax payer.
Good to see we are hammering the rich bastard chippies.
hammering or screwing?
It's usually quite difficult to crowbar any unpaid tax from some tradesmen..
Brexit is nothing like as big a deal as both sides wanted to pretend for different reasons. It is done now and unlikely to be a sticking point going forward.
What we really need is a government that is willing to address our underlying problems
Brexit is not nearly "done", and it solved exactly none of our underlying problems, while exacerbating many of them.
Apart from that...
Indeed. They're still sorting out UK customs after many, many postponements.
That is not a state in control of its destiny, though this time it's the Brexiteers who are the government.
Let me give you a specific example - meat imports. We delayed repeatedly the introduction of our post-Brexit border model. At one point the minister for Brexit Opportunities described the implementation of our demanded model as an act of "national self-harm"
So at the end of January we belatedly imposed checks on imports, albeit not checks where we actually check either the paperwork or the goods. We still do not have the physical infrastructure or the staff or the computer systems to do so.
Our EU neighbours though, they are treaty-bound to implement our deal. And they have. In full. Where the French were struggling to get enough paperwork generated quickly enough, their own government started paying to clear them. The Spanish government are very clear on export to UK rules and have simply and completely implemented it.
We remain functionally incompetent when it comes to the border. Never mind Take Back Control, despite years of delay we still have to wave stuff through because we haven't bothered to invest in the set-up to do our own checks.
My conclusion is that for mist Tory Brexiteers the gains were all slogan and no detail. they didn't actually want the act of "national self-harm", they just wanted to pretend that we could tell the foreign what to do.
What other explanation is there?
Alternative explanation: Not being aligned with the EU allows us to make agreements with other countries like Australia which we can import meat from.
Implementing checks on EU meat is not necessary to achieve that gain.
The world is a bigger place than Europe. If you only look at France and Spain, of course it won't make sense.
If only Australia was close enough to make that possible.
Can I refer you back to the word "slogan"
We have a HUGELY competitive market. We already import some meat and fish from all kinds of places. Chicken from Brazil and Thailand as an example. If you want cheapo crap meat. But replace our closest most aligned marketplace with ones on the other side of the globe? If it was viable it would have been done already.
Australia is close enough to make that possible. Its on Planet Earth, everywhere on Planet Earth is close enough to make that possible.
For fresh veg you may have a point, but for meat? You can ship meat all over the planet. I have beef right now in my freezer from Argentina, what bloody difference does the country of origin make?
The alignment with the EU put tariff and non-tariff barriers against non-European meat. Barriers we can and absolutely should remove, but no reason for us to replace those with new barriers against European meat. All we need to do to look after consumers is remove the barriers, if the Europeans want to put barriers against us, that's their consumers problem, not ours.
"freezer"
Yes, what's wrong with that?
Most meat is frozen in transportation, are you not aware of that?
No wonder you were so ignorant that you thought country of origin matters.
I can talk you through the process of blast freezing, frozen import, uptemper, datecode, pack and ship if you like. And how to make a profit doing it.
Can you?
"Most meat is frozen" / "so ignorant that you thought country of origin matters"
Go round the chilled section of any supermarket. Look at the products. What they are called. How prominent the country of origin is.
Then try again.
Many chilled products in the supermarket were previously frozen. They're labelled so too.
Prominently displaying country of origin is protectionist bullshit, but if people want to pay attention to that they're free to do so.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with freezing meat. Or importing frozen meat.
“Displaying country of origin is protectionist bullshit”.
Er, what? You don’t think people should be interested in the provenance of their food?
No. Why should they?
Other than protectionist bullshit?
In a free market, companies should be able to display whatever they want on their packaging as long as it's factually correct, surely?
Brexit is nothing like as big a deal as both sides wanted to pretend for different reasons. It is done now and unlikely to be a sticking point going forward.
What we really need is a government that is willing to address our underlying problems
Brexit is not nearly "done", and it solved exactly none of our underlying problems, while exacerbating many of them.
Apart from that...
Indeed. They're still sorting out UK customs after many, many postponements.
That is not a state in control of its destiny, though this time it's the Brexiteers who are the government.
Let me give you a specific example - meat imports. We delayed repeatedly the introduction of our post-Brexit border model. At one point the minister for Brexit Opportunities described the implementation of our demanded model as an act of "national self-harm"
So at the end of January we belatedly imposed checks on imports, albeit not checks where we actually check either the paperwork or the goods. We still do not have the physical infrastructure or the staff or the computer systems to do so.
Our EU neighbours though, they are treaty-bound to implement our deal. And they have. In full. Where the French were struggling to get enough paperwork generated quickly enough, their own government started paying to clear them. The Spanish government are very clear on export to UK rules and have simply and completely implemented it.
We remain functionally incompetent when it comes to the border. Never mind Take Back Control, despite years of delay we still have to wave stuff through because we haven't bothered to invest in the set-up to do our own checks.
My conclusion is that for mist Tory Brexiteers the gains were all slogan and no detail. they didn't actually want the act of "national self-harm", they just wanted to pretend that we could tell the foreign what to do.
What other explanation is there?
Alternative explanation: Not being aligned with the EU allows us to make agreements with other countries like Australia which we can import meat from.
Implementing checks on EU meat is not necessary to achieve that gain.
The world is a bigger place than Europe. If you only look at France and Spain, of course it won't make sense.
Musk is one of those clever people who is also extremely stupid.
At the risk of invoking Godwin's law, Trump's less militant supporters remind me of those middle class, and upper working class, Germans who voted for the NSDAP, or other nationalist parties, and favoured coalition with the NSDAP, not because they were virulently anti-semitic, but because they thought the party would restore order, and Germany's place in the world. What they got was a government that was completely lawless, and led the country to ruin.
Might be an idea to eat our own beef, and support British farming, rather than ship meat from the other side of the world.
Just an idea.
And, as a consumer, you absolutely have that choice. Buy British.
Unfortunately, meat-shaming is a massive thing in Met circles now. It's probably the thing, alongside "Diversity™", that comes up most often.
What a weird part of London I must live in where people talk about work, family, holidays, football, dating, hobbies rather than meat shaming and diversity. Fortunately we have people who don't live in cities to keep us up to date about how terrible our lives are, otherwise we might never have realised.
"Met" means liberal metropolitan elite leaders who run organisations, companies and third sector institutions.
Not ordinary people who live in urban cities. But you knew that.
Brexit is nothing like as big a deal as both sides wanted to pretend for different reasons. It is done now and unlikely to be a sticking point going forward.
What we really need is a government that is willing to address our underlying problems
Brexit is not nearly "done", and it solved exactly none of our underlying problems, while exacerbating many of them.
Apart from that...
Indeed. They're still sorting out UK customs after many, many postponements.
That is not a state in control of its destiny, though this time it's the Brexiteers who are the government.
Let me give you a specific example - meat imports. We delayed repeatedly the introduction of our post-Brexit border model. At one point the minister for Brexit Opportunities described the implementation of our demanded model as an act of "national self-harm"
So at the end of January we belatedly imposed checks on imports, albeit not checks where we actually check either the paperwork or the goods. We still do not have the physical infrastructure or the staff or the computer systems to do so.
Our EU neighbours though, they are treaty-bound to implement our deal. And they have. In full. Where the French were struggling to get enough paperwork generated quickly enough, their own government started paying to clear them. The Spanish government are very clear on export to UK rules and have simply and completely implemented it.
We remain functionally incompetent when it comes to the border. Never mind Take Back Control, despite years of delay we still have to wave stuff through because we haven't bothered to invest in the set-up to do our own checks.
My conclusion is that for mist Tory Brexiteers the gains were all slogan and no detail. they didn't actually want the act of "national self-harm", they just wanted to pretend that we could tell the foreign what to do.
What other explanation is there?
Alternative explanation: Not being aligned with the EU allows us to make agreements with other countries like Australia which we can import meat from.
Implementing checks on EU meat is not necessary to achieve that gain.
The world is a bigger place than Europe. If you only look at France and Spain, of course it won't make sense.
If only Australia was close enough to make that possible.
Can I refer you back to the word "slogan"
We have a HUGELY competitive market. We already import some meat and fish from all kinds of places. Chicken from Brazil and Thailand as an example. If you want cheapo crap meat. But replace our closest most aligned marketplace with ones on the other side of the globe? If it was viable it would have been done already.
Australia is close enough to make that possible. Its on Planet Earth, everywhere on Planet Earth is close enough to make that possible.
For fresh veg you may have a point, but for meat? You can ship meat all over the planet. I have beef right now in my freezer from Argentina, what bloody difference does the country of origin make?
The alignment with the EU put tariff and non-tariff barriers against non-European meat. Barriers we can and absolutely should remove, but no reason for us to replace those with new barriers against European meat. All we need to do to look after consumers is remove the barriers, if the Europeans want to put barriers against us, that's their consumers problem, not ours.
"freezer"
Yes, what's wrong with that?
Most meat is frozen in transportation, are you not aware of that?
No wonder you were so ignorant that you thought country of origin matters.
I can talk you through the process of blast freezing, frozen import, uptemper, datecode, pack and ship if you like. And how to make a profit doing it.
Can you?
"Most meat is frozen" / "so ignorant that you thought country of origin matters"
Go round the chilled section of any supermarket. Look at the products. What they are called. How prominent the country of origin is.
Then try again.
Many chilled products in the supermarket were previously frozen. They're labelled so too.
Prominently displaying country of origin is protectionist bullshit, but if people want to pay attention to that they're free to do so.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with freezing meat. Or importing frozen meat.
“Displaying country of origin is protectionist bullshit”.
Er, what? You don’t think people should be interested in the provenance of their food?
No. Why should they?
Other than protectionist bullshit?
So, you favour statist control over what information consumers are allowed to see?
Might be an idea to eat our own beef, and support British farming, rather than ship meat from the other side of the world.
Just an idea.
And, as a consumer, you absolutely have that choice. Buy British.
Unfortunately, meat-shaming is a massive thing in Met circles now. It's probably the thing, alongside "Diversity™", that comes up most often.
What a weird part of London I must live in where people talk about work, family, holidays, football, dating, hobbies rather than meat shaming and diversity. Fortunately we have people who don't live in cities to keep us up to date about how terrible our lives are, otherwise we might never have realised.
It must be quite exhausting imagining what people in London are thinking about all the time, I wonder if there is any time left over for thoughts of their own?
Again, imagining what you think I must have meant rather than what I actually did.
And, wilfully so. Still, you got a few reflexive likes out of it - so I'm sure you're happy.
Longshot but... Has anyone used the Austrian Rail (OBB) Nightjet sleeper service?
Looking to book the Paris - Vienna sleeper for September but tickets only seem bookable until May, although their website says they open six months in advance.
The Man at Seat 61 says this...
Austrian Railways (ÖBB, www.oebb.at) open bookings up to 6 months ahead, including international trains and their Nightjet sleeper trains. However, for international routes to/from Austria it depends on their partner railway. ÖBB's Paris-Vienna, Brussels-Vienna & Amsterdam-Vienna Nightjet sleepers may only open for booking 2-4 months ahead. see https://www.seat61.com/european-train-booking-horizons.htm
I’ve begun to despair about house building. Nimbyism appears to unite the country in a way little else does. Rich and poor, Brexit and remain, left and right. All have this same muscle reflex to object to any proposed development. Even the relatively young are at it round here.
The thing is so all pervading that I hide my quiet yimbyism from the neighbours for fear of being considered a traitor.
The lack of building is probably the single biggest mistake we make as a country. So much capital is wasted on unproductive house purchases rather than investing in productive industry. We waste money on rubbish housing, because that's all that is available, and starve the industries that would make us richer. But you can't persuade people to do otherwise as essentially everyone is on the "it's my pension" idiocy of thinking housing becoming more expensive is good. There's not a single other product or service where any people think that the cost going up is a good thing.
I've no idea what would change attitudes here, it would likely require something like a major natural disaster or world war. The possibility of it changing due to politics and governance is nil, as no party proposes construction at the scale necessary to make a real difference, as they know that to do so would make them unelectable. "Vote for me and you house will lose value, both relatively and in absolute terms."
I think it's a bit strange that people should be so quick to say the red and blue walls cannot ever be reconciled, when this was achieved just over four years ago at GE 2019. If the polls are anywhere like accurate, then Labour are poised to reconcile three major groups in the electorate - metropolitan liberals, blue labour and conservative swing voters.
These groups are not reconciled due to the oratorical brilliance of Keir-Ends-In-R Starmer, but due to Starmer's success in blandifying the Labour party so as not to put any of the groups off, and the categorical imperative of finding a means for these groups to punish the Tories.
Achieving something in reverse for the Tories requires only a bit of experience of Labour in government, and a Tory leader who isn't trying to actively alienate one part of the voter coalition.
I like your counter to this, with the 2019 evidence to back up your point.
However … those cracks were in the Party for a long time and we kid ourselves to think otherwise. That divide is really what brought down John Major and it didn’t do Margaret Thatcher much good in the end either. It all boiled to the surface when @TSE ’s beloved Davey boy idiotically called the Brexit referendum, thinking in his Old Etonian arrogance that he would pull off the same stunt as indyref.
(If you want to see what a shit Cameron really is then DO read the finale to Suzanne Heywood’s What Does Jeremy Think?)
I still maintain that 2019 was unique. Even I, a remainer, was utterly exasperated at the antics of that Remainer Parliament and at just the right moment along came Boris, someone uniquely gifted at deception to hoodwink the British people. With mellifluous honey-coated lies he pulled in blue and red wall voters. My Surrey tory friend, totally disillusioned now with the Party, STILL ADORES Boris and would vote for him like a shot.
Assuming Boris doesn’t make a Lazarite comeback, there’s no one else of his ilk. Once in a century.
Yes, it's true to say that the splits had been in the Tory party for a long time - but then that is true of any governing party in Britain. There is no single cohesive group of voters that is large enough to win a majority on its own. So it's normal for a governing party to be sustained by a coalition of voters divided amongst itself, and those divisions will obviously come to the fore when the party is generally unpopular.
I don't see anything unusual with what is happening to the Tories now, and so I don't think it requires anything extraordinary to fix the situation.
Indeed, what seems to be a more volatile electorate means that there is potential for the fractured Tory coalition to come back together (very temporarily) more quickly than currently appears possible. The situation facing an incoming Labour government is much more difficult than that encountered in 1997.
Although the Tories have been in government for nearly 14 years now, I think that is misleading. They have had several reinventions in that time, and so the last 14 years have been a lot more like the 1970s, than the long periods of Thatcherite/Blairite rule in the 80s/90s/00s.
Whatever Starmerism turns out to be I would not bet on it lasting that long. It's quite likely to be overturned by something very different, either from within the Labour party, or without, by the end of the decade.
A good response but your last paragraph is a fig leaf I’ve noticed some Conservatives clinging onto i.e. the assumption that Starmer is going to fail.
Whilst I don’t underestimate the magnitude of problems facing this country, and I’m no longer convinced Labour will fix them, I suspect many people will look back on the last 5 years as a horror show they never want to go near again in their lifetime.
I’m beginning to think Labour will be in power for 20 years.
I'm not a Conservative.
We'll see what Starmerism turns out to be - it's really hard to predict because he's shown so little indication of what his approach will be - but I included the possibility of Starmerism being overturned from within the Labour party. Whether Labour is in office for two decades, or not, I do not think Britain is in for a period of stable politics. There are large problems, that are difficult to solve, and a lot of rootless discontent sloshing about the political system as a result.
It could be that the Tory brand, and all the politicians associated with it, is so damaged that the voters won't go near it for a long time, but in that case the voter's discontent will manifest itself through other parties, or through factions within the Labour party. Cameron was PM for 6 years and 64 days. He wasn't brought down because the voters were ready to give Labour another go. I doubt very much that Starmer will have so long, but I don't see the Tories returning so soon either (thank God).
I'm instructing my financial advisor to advise me on protecting my assets against a potential confiscatory very left-wing Labour government.
It's perfectly possible Starmer gets dethroned, in office, for a Left-wing alternative like you say, and they utterly abuse the MP base they have in Parliament.
Well don't put it under your mattress, there appear to a lot of Reds under your bed.
Seriously, I wonder what legal options your financial adviser might suggest? Whatever they are, I'll warrant said IFA will be the only one to profit.
Who knows. One idea is to send some out the country and/or put it in a trusted relatives name.
But that holds risks in itself.
I could see (would vote for) a wealth tax of say 1-2% per annum on assets over say £1m. If that's what you class as 'confiscatory' it would likely cost you a larger percentage to avoid that.
I am genuinely intrigued that you fear such a threat.
No, much worse than that.
Go on - what does 'much worse than that' look like? What do you think is really a possibility at shall we say a >5% chance?
In West London, this level of property tax would push out anyone who wasn’t poor or on over £100k. Including those renting.
There are huge numbers of people who live there from the times before property went mad. Hence the interesting patch work of the redone houses with the expensive cars next to the down at heel looking places with the hatchback.
Increasing people’s bills by £1k a month would make the poll tax riots look tame.
I should have said, as I did in my next post, 'the exclusion of a principal private residence would be sensible.'
Most of our country’s wealth is in PPRs, so that would be self defeating.
“Wealth” is hard to tax. Real estate is easy. Make it a land value tax. We already pay something akin to this in our council tax and business rates. Reform council tax, give LAs or regions more tax raising powers and autonomy, and over time the new rebranded council tax can take up more of the national revenue base.
No, it would be limiting but not self-defeating.
Anyway, this was all in response to Casino's fear of a Labour government confiscating all his assets, a fear which I think is unfounded.
In many ways the difficulties others have raised with my idle-Sunday-morning-Wealth-Tax meanderings only reinforce the weirdness of Casino's confiscation fears. (I hesitate to use the word paranoia but... oh, I just have.)
Alistair Meeks, late of this parish, once wrote a very compelling article about a Corbynista government taking a confiscatory approach to private pensions in its search to raid funds for its spending programme.
I take that entirely seriously. And there are plenty of other countries around the world who've done similar things in the past, and suffered gravely for it.
Musk is one of those clever people who is also extremely stupid.
At the risk of invoking Godwin's law, Trump's less militant supporters remind me of those middle class, and upper working class, Germans who voted for the NSDAP, or other nationalist parties, and favoured coalition with the NSDAP, not because they were virulently anti-semitic, but because they thought the party would restore order, and Germany's place in the world. What they got was a government that was completely lawless, and led the country to ruin.
I think Musk has simply got sucked into his own rabbit hole.
One of the best things I've done is come off Twitter.
I think it's a bit strange that people should be so quick to say the red and blue walls cannot ever be reconciled, when this was achieved just over four years ago at GE 2019. If the polls are anywhere like accurate, then Labour are poised to reconcile three major groups in the electorate - metropolitan liberals, blue labour and conservative swing voters.
These groups are not reconciled due to the oratorical brilliance of Keir-Ends-In-R Starmer, but due to Starmer's success in blandifying the Labour party so as not to put any of the groups off, and the categorical imperative of finding a means for these groups to punish the Tories.
Achieving something in reverse for the Tories requires only a bit of experience of Labour in government, and a Tory leader who isn't trying to actively alienate one part of the voter coalition.
I like your counter to this, with the 2019 evidence to back up your point.
However … those cracks were in the Party for a long time and we kid ourselves to think otherwise. That divide is really what brought down John Major and it didn’t do Margaret Thatcher much good in the end either. It all boiled to the surface when @TSE ’s beloved Davey boy idiotically called the Brexit referendum, thinking in his Old Etonian arrogance that he would pull off the same stunt as indyref.
(If you want to see what a shit Cameron really is then DO read the finale to Suzanne Heywood’s What Does Jeremy Think?)
I still maintain that 2019 was unique. Even I, a remainer, was utterly exasperated at the antics of that Remainer Parliament and at just the right moment along came Boris, someone uniquely gifted at deception to hoodwink the British people. With mellifluous honey-coated lies he pulled in blue and red wall voters. My Surrey tory friend, totally disillusioned now with the Party, STILL ADORES Boris and would vote for him like a shot.
Assuming Boris doesn’t make a Lazarite comeback, there’s no one else of his ilk. Once in a century.
Yes, it's true to say that the splits had been in the Tory party for a long time - but then that is true of any governing party in Britain. There is no single cohesive group of voters that is large enough to win a majority on its own. So it's normal for a governing party to be sustained by a coalition of voters divided amongst itself, and those divisions will obviously come to the fore when the party is generally unpopular.
I don't see anything unusual with what is happening to the Tories now, and so I don't think it requires anything extraordinary to fix the situation.
Indeed, what seems to be a more volatile electorate means that there is potential for the fractured Tory coalition to come back together (very temporarily) more quickly than currently appears possible. The situation facing an incoming Labour government is much more difficult than that encountered in 1997.
Although the Tories have been in government for nearly 14 years now, I think that is misleading. They have had several reinventions in that time, and so the last 14 years have been a lot more like the 1970s, than the long periods of Thatcherite/Blairite rule in the 80s/90s/00s.
Whatever Starmerism turns out to be I would not bet on it lasting that long. It's quite likely to be overturned by something very different, either from within the Labour party, or without, by the end of the decade.
A good response but your last paragraph is a fig leaf I’ve noticed some Conservatives clinging onto i.e. the assumption that Starmer is going to fail.
Whilst I don’t underestimate the magnitude of problems facing this country, and I’m no longer convinced Labour will fix them, I suspect many people will look back on the last 5 years as a horror show they never want to go near again in their lifetime.
I’m beginning to think Labour will be in power for 20 years.
I'm not a Conservative.
We'll see what Starmerism turns out to be - it's really hard to predict because he's shown so little indication of what his approach will be - but I included the possibility of Starmerism being overturned from within the Labour party. Whether Labour is in office for two decades, or not, I do not think Britain is in for a period of stable politics. There are large problems, that are difficult to solve, and a lot of rootless discontent sloshing about the political system as a result.
It could be that the Tory brand, and all the politicians associated with it, is so damaged that the voters won't go near it for a long time, but in that case the voter's discontent will manifest itself through other parties, or through factions within the Labour party. Cameron was PM for 6 years and 64 days. He wasn't brought down because the voters were ready to give Labour another go. I doubt very much that Starmer will have so long, but I don't see the Tories returning so soon either (thank God).
I'm instructing my financial advisor to advise me on protecting my assets against a potential confiscatory very left-wing Labour government.
It's perfectly possible Starmer gets dethroned, in office, for a Left-wing alternative like you say, and they utterly abuse the MP base they have in Parliament.
Well don't put it under your mattress, there appear to a lot of Reds under your bed.
Seriously, I wonder what legal options your financial adviser might suggest? Whatever they are, I'll warrant said IFA will be the only one to profit.
Who knows. One idea is to send some out the country and/or put it in a trusted relatives name.
But that holds risks in itself.
I could see (would vote for) a wealth tax of say 1-2% per annum on assets over say £1m. If that's what you class as 'confiscatory' it would likely cost you a larger percentage to avoid that.
I am genuinely intrigued that you fear such a threat.
The problem is that taxation is 'progressive' - and not in the way you or I normally mean. What starts with a tax just on assets over 1 million quickly becomes a tax on 500K, then 200K and then on all assets over a nominal value including your family home. This is what we see in many places which do have wealth taxes and is sure to be the way things progress here. Much like authoritarian laws, once you have put them in place not only is it very difficult toget rid of them but they are pernicious and spread to areas you never intended.
Can you give some specific examples of this happening “in many places which do have wealth taxes”? Name five.
Might be an idea to eat our own beef, and support British farming, rather than ship meat from the other side of the world.
Just an idea.
And, as a consumer, you absolutely have that choice. Buy British.
Unfortunately, meat-shaming is a massive thing in Met circles now. It's probably the thing, alongside "Diversity™", that comes up most often.
What a weird part of London I must live in where people talk about work, family, holidays, football, dating, hobbies rather than meat shaming and diversity. Fortunately we have people who don't live in cities to keep us up to date about how terrible our lives are, otherwise we might never have realised.
Mamchester City Council last year hung banners from its lampposts urging people to eat less meat. Seemed an odd use of public funds.
I think it's a bit strange that people should be so quick to say the red and blue walls cannot ever be reconciled, when this was achieved just over four years ago at GE 2019. If the polls are anywhere like accurate, then Labour are poised to reconcile three major groups in the electorate - metropolitan liberals, blue labour and conservative swing voters.
These groups are not reconciled due to the oratorical brilliance of Keir-Ends-In-R Starmer, but due to Starmer's success in blandifying the Labour party so as not to put any of the groups off, and the categorical imperative of finding a means for these groups to punish the Tories.
Achieving something in reverse for the Tories requires only a bit of experience of Labour in government, and a Tory leader who isn't trying to actively alienate one part of the voter coalition.
I like your counter to this, with the 2019 evidence to back up your point.
However … those cracks were in the Party for a long time and we kid ourselves to think otherwise. That divide is really what brought down John Major and it didn’t do Margaret Thatcher much good in the end either. It all boiled to the surface when @TSE ’s beloved Davey boy idiotically called the Brexit referendum, thinking in his Old Etonian arrogance that he would pull off the same stunt as indyref.
(If you want to see what a shit Cameron really is then DO read the finale to Suzanne Heywood’s What Does Jeremy Think?)
I still maintain that 2019 was unique. Even I, a remainer, was utterly exasperated at the antics of that Remainer Parliament and at just the right moment along came Boris, someone uniquely gifted at deception to hoodwink the British people. With mellifluous honey-coated lies he pulled in blue and red wall voters. My Surrey tory friend, totally disillusioned now with the Party, STILL ADORES Boris and would vote for him like a shot.
Assuming Boris doesn’t make a Lazarite comeback, there’s no one else of his ilk. Once in a century.
Yes, it's true to say that the splits had been in the Tory party for a long time - but then that is true of any governing party in Britain. There is no single cohesive group of voters that is large enough to win a majority on its own. So it's normal for a governing party to be sustained by a coalition of voters divided amongst itself, and those divisions will obviously come to the fore when the party is generally unpopular.
I don't see anything unusual with what is happening to the Tories now, and so I don't think it requires anything extraordinary to fix the situation.
Indeed, what seems to be a more volatile electorate means that there is potential for the fractured Tory coalition to come back together (very temporarily) more quickly than currently appears possible. The situation facing an incoming Labour government is much more difficult than that encountered in 1997.
Although the Tories have been in government for nearly 14 years now, I think that is misleading. They have had several reinventions in that time, and so the last 14 years have been a lot more like the 1970s, than the long periods of Thatcherite/Blairite rule in the 80s/90s/00s.
Whatever Starmerism turns out to be I would not bet on it lasting that long. It's quite likely to be overturned by something very different, either from within the Labour party, or without, by the end of the decade.
A good response but your last paragraph is a fig leaf I’ve noticed some Conservatives clinging onto i.e. the assumption that Starmer is going to fail.
Whilst I don’t underestimate the magnitude of problems facing this country, and I’m no longer convinced Labour will fix them, I suspect many people will look back on the last 5 years as a horror show they never want to go near again in their lifetime.
I’m beginning to think Labour will be in power for 20 years.
I'm not a Conservative.
We'll see what Starmerism turns out to be - it's really hard to predict because he's shown so little indication of what his approach will be - but I included the possibility of Starmerism being overturned from within the Labour party. Whether Labour is in office for two decades, or not, I do not think Britain is in for a period of stable politics. There are large problems, that are difficult to solve, and a lot of rootless discontent sloshing about the political system as a result.
It could be that the Tory brand, and all the politicians associated with it, is so damaged that the voters won't go near it for a long time, but in that case the voter's discontent will manifest itself through other parties, or through factions within the Labour party. Cameron was PM for 6 years and 64 days. He wasn't brought down because the voters were ready to give Labour another go. I doubt very much that Starmer will have so long, but I don't see the Tories returning so soon either (thank God).
I'm instructing my financial advisor to advise me on protecting my assets against a potential confiscatory very left-wing Labour government.
It's perfectly possible Starmer gets dethroned, in office, for a Left-wing alternative like you say, and they utterly abuse the MP base they have in Parliament.
Well don't put it under your mattress, there appear to a lot of Reds under your bed.
Seriously, I wonder what legal options your financial adviser might suggest? Whatever they are, I'll warrant said IFA will be the only one to profit.
Who knows. One idea is to send some out the country and/or put it in a trusted relatives name.
But that holds risks in itself.
I could see (would vote for) a wealth tax of say 1-2% per annum on assets over say £1m. If that's what you class as 'confiscatory' it would likely cost you a larger percentage to avoid that.
I am genuinely intrigued that you fear such a threat.
No, much worse than that.
Go on - what does 'much worse than that' look like? What do you think is really a possibility at shall we say a >5% chance?
In West London, this level of property tax would push out anyone who wasn’t poor or on over £100k. Including those renting.
There are huge numbers of people who live there from the times before property went mad. Hence the interesting patch work of the redone houses with the expensive cars next to the down at heel looking places with the hatchback.
Increasing people’s bills by £1k a month would make the poll tax riots look tame.
I should have said, as I did in my next post, 'the exclusion of a principal private residence would be sensible.'
Most of our country’s wealth is in PPRs, so that would be self defeating.
“Wealth” is hard to tax. Real estate is easy. Make it a land value tax. We already pay something akin to this in our council tax and business rates. Reform council tax, give LAs or regions more tax raising powers and autonomy, and over time the new rebranded council tax can take up more of the national revenue base.
No, it would be limiting but not self-defeating.
Anyway, this was all in response to Casino's fear of a Labour government confiscating all his assets, a fear which I think is unfounded.
In many ways the difficulties others have raised with my idle-Sunday-morning-Wealth-Tax meanderings only reinforce the weirdness of Casino's confiscation fears. (I hesitate to use the word paranoia but... oh, I just have.)
Alistair Meeks, late of this parish, once wrote a very compelling article about a Corbynista government taking a confiscatory approach to private pensions in its search to raid funds for its spending programme.
I take that entirely seriously. And there are plenty of other countries around the world who've done similar things in the past, and suffered gravely for it.
That was a Corbynista government - you may not have noticed this but the Labour party are actively seeking power from a centralist ground (which isn't difficult because the Tories have gone insane right).
And the Corbynista plan was to nationalise things - any future government isn't going to be doing that - it's going to be finding every penny it can find to pay for immediate spending because things are rapidly falling apart....
I think it's a bit strange that people should be so quick to say the red and blue walls cannot ever be reconciled, when this was achieved just over four years ago at GE 2019. If the polls are anywhere like accurate, then Labour are poised to reconcile three major groups in the electorate - metropolitan liberals, blue labour and conservative swing voters.
These groups are not reconciled due to the oratorical brilliance of Keir-Ends-In-R Starmer, but due to Starmer's success in blandifying the Labour party so as not to put any of the groups off, and the categorical imperative of finding a means for these groups to punish the Tories.
Achieving something in reverse for the Tories requires only a bit of experience of Labour in government, and a Tory leader who isn't trying to actively alienate one part of the voter coalition.
I like your counter to this, with the 2019 evidence to back up your point.
However … those cracks were in the Party for a long time and we kid ourselves to think otherwise. That divide is really what brought down John Major and it didn’t do Margaret Thatcher much good in the end either. It all boiled to the surface when @TSE ’s beloved Davey boy idiotically called the Brexit referendum, thinking in his Old Etonian arrogance that he would pull off the same stunt as indyref.
(If you want to see what a shit Cameron really is then DO read the finale to Suzanne Heywood’s What Does Jeremy Think?)
I still maintain that 2019 was unique. Even I, a remainer, was utterly exasperated at the antics of that Remainer Parliament and at just the right moment along came Boris, someone uniquely gifted at deception to hoodwink the British people. With mellifluous honey-coated lies he pulled in blue and red wall voters. My Surrey tory friend, totally disillusioned now with the Party, STILL ADORES Boris and would vote for him like a shot.
Assuming Boris doesn’t make a Lazarite comeback, there’s no one else of his ilk. Once in a century.
Yes, it's true to say that the splits had been in the Tory party for a long time - but then that is true of any governing party in Britain. There is no single cohesive group of voters that is large enough to win a majority on its own. So it's normal for a governing party to be sustained by a coalition of voters divided amongst itself, and those divisions will obviously come to the fore when the party is generally unpopular.
I don't see anything unusual with what is happening to the Tories now, and so I don't think it requires anything extraordinary to fix the situation.
Indeed, what seems to be a more volatile electorate means that there is potential for the fractured Tory coalition to come back together (very temporarily) more quickly than currently appears possible. The situation facing an incoming Labour government is much more difficult than that encountered in 1997.
Although the Tories have been in government for nearly 14 years now, I think that is misleading. They have had several reinventions in that time, and so the last 14 years have been a lot more like the 1970s, than the long periods of Thatcherite/Blairite rule in the 80s/90s/00s.
Whatever Starmerism turns out to be I would not bet on it lasting that long. It's quite likely to be overturned by something very different, either from within the Labour party, or without, by the end of the decade.
A good response but your last paragraph is a fig leaf I’ve noticed some Conservatives clinging onto i.e. the assumption that Starmer is going to fail.
Whilst I don’t underestimate the magnitude of problems facing this country, and I’m no longer convinced Labour will fix them, I suspect many people will look back on the last 5 years as a horror show they never want to go near again in their lifetime.
I’m beginning to think Labour will be in power for 20 years.
I'm not a Conservative.
We'll see what Starmerism turns out to be - it's really hard to predict because he's shown so little indication of what his approach will be - but I included the possibility of Starmerism being overturned from within the Labour party. Whether Labour is in office for two decades, or not, I do not think Britain is in for a period of stable politics. There are large problems, that are difficult to solve, and a lot of rootless discontent sloshing about the political system as a result.
It could be that the Tory brand, and all the politicians associated with it, is so damaged that the voters won't go near it for a long time, but in that case the voter's discontent will manifest itself through other parties, or through factions within the Labour party. Cameron was PM for 6 years and 64 days. He wasn't brought down because the voters were ready to give Labour another go. I doubt very much that Starmer will have so long, but I don't see the Tories returning so soon either (thank God).
I'm instructing my financial advisor to advise me on protecting my assets against a potential confiscatory very left-wing Labour government.
It's perfectly possible Starmer gets dethroned, in office, for a Left-wing alternative like you say, and they utterly abuse the MP base they have in Parliament.
Well don't put it under your mattress, there appear to a lot of Reds under your bed.
Seriously, I wonder what legal options your financial adviser might suggest? Whatever they are, I'll warrant said IFA will be the only one to profit.
Who knows. One idea is to send some out the country and/or put it in a trusted relatives name.
But that holds risks in itself.
I could see (would vote for) a wealth tax of say 1-2% per annum on assets over say £1m. If that's what you class as 'confiscatory' it would likely cost you a larger percentage to avoid that.
I am genuinely intrigued that you fear such a threat.
No, much worse than that.
Go on - what does 'much worse than that' look like? What do you think is really a possibility at shall we say a >5% chance?
In West London, this level of property tax would push out anyone who wasn’t poor or on over £100k. Including those renting.
There are huge numbers of people who live there from the times before property went mad. Hence the interesting patch work of the redone houses with the expensive cars next to the down at heel looking places with the hatchback.
Increasing people’s bills by £1k a month would make the poll tax riots look tame.
I should have said, as I did in my next post, 'the exclusion of a principal private residence would be sensible.'
The problem then is that putting money into property becomes, even more, the way to store wealth.
And round we go.
That won't drive up house prices though - lack of supply does that.
Build more houses and it won't matter if people want to put more money into their private residence, the value will be dictated by supply and demand.
I’ve begun to despair about house building. Nimbyism appears to unite the country in a way little else does. Rich and poor, Brexit and remain, left and right. All have this same muscle reflex to object to any proposed development. Even the relatively young are at it round here.
The thing is so all pervading that I hide my quiet yimbyism from the neighbours for fear of being considered a traitor.
I think the NIMBYism is exacerbated by the lack of public services. It's hard to argue for more housing when you can't even provide an NHS dentist for the existing population.
Even LTNs are a reaction to more housing, as previously quiet neighbourhoods become ratruns for new ones.
Around here it’s not that. It’s pure aesthetics. People not wanting their nice view across the rooftops spoiled by a new building.
I'm not suggesting it's the only reason. It's either a contributory factor, or a convenient mask for NIMBYism. It's impossible to argue against though, as I've witnessed in a few council meetings.
Convenient mask, definitely. In many cases anti-development campaigns are an objection looking for a reason. A selection of recent examples in this (urban, not exactly green belt) neck of the woods:
- Not in keeping with the local vernacular - Trees would need to be felled - Drainage during heavy rain - Affects sight lines along rooftops - Increased traffic - No parking spaces - Gentrification driving locals out - Was a pub (that nobody went in and has been closed for years) - Mews should be kept for traditional light industry
I shouldn’t complain really. We benefited from a very aggressive nimby campaign because our current house had been bought as a derelict shell by a business who wanted to turn it into a nursery. The locals were up in arms and the application failed. The owners then sold it on, to us.
I think it's a bit strange that people should be so quick to say the red and blue walls cannot ever be reconciled, when this was achieved just over four years ago at GE 2019. If the polls are anywhere like accurate, then Labour are poised to reconcile three major groups in the electorate - metropolitan liberals, blue labour and conservative swing voters.
These groups are not reconciled due to the oratorical brilliance of Keir-Ends-In-R Starmer, but due to Starmer's success in blandifying the Labour party so as not to put any of the groups off, and the categorical imperative of finding a means for these groups to punish the Tories.
Achieving something in reverse for the Tories requires only a bit of experience of Labour in government, and a Tory leader who isn't trying to actively alienate one part of the voter coalition.
I like your counter to this, with the 2019 evidence to back up your point.
However … those cracks were in the Party for a long time and we kid ourselves to think otherwise. That divide is really what brought down John Major and it didn’t do Margaret Thatcher much good in the end either. It all boiled to the surface when @TSE ’s beloved Davey boy idiotically called the Brexit referendum, thinking in his Old Etonian arrogance that he would pull off the same stunt as indyref.
(If you want to see what a shit Cameron really is then DO read the finale to Suzanne Heywood’s What Does Jeremy Think?)
I still maintain that 2019 was unique. Even I, a remainer, was utterly exasperated at the antics of that Remainer Parliament and at just the right moment along came Boris, someone uniquely gifted at deception to hoodwink the British people. With mellifluous honey-coated lies he pulled in blue and red wall voters. My Surrey tory friend, totally disillusioned now with the Party, STILL ADORES Boris and would vote for him like a shot.
Assuming Boris doesn’t make a Lazarite comeback, there’s no one else of his ilk. Once in a century.
Yes, it's true to say that the splits had been in the Tory party for a long time - but then that is true of any governing party in Britain. There is no single cohesive group of voters that is large enough to win a majority on its own. So it's normal for a governing party to be sustained by a coalition of voters divided amongst itself, and those divisions will obviously come to the fore when the party is generally unpopular.
I don't see anything unusual with what is happening to the Tories now, and so I don't think it requires anything extraordinary to fix the situation.
Indeed, what seems to be a more volatile electorate means that there is potential for the fractured Tory coalition to come back together (very temporarily) more quickly than currently appears possible. The situation facing an incoming Labour government is much more difficult than that encountered in 1997.
Although the Tories have been in government for nearly 14 years now, I think that is misleading. They have had several reinventions in that time, and so the last 14 years have been a lot more like the 1970s, than the long periods of Thatcherite/Blairite rule in the 80s/90s/00s.
Whatever Starmerism turns out to be I would not bet on it lasting that long. It's quite likely to be overturned by something very different, either from within the Labour party, or without, by the end of the decade.
A good response but your last paragraph is a fig leaf I’ve noticed some Conservatives clinging onto i.e. the assumption that Starmer is going to fail.
Whilst I don’t underestimate the magnitude of problems facing this country, and I’m no longer convinced Labour will fix them, I suspect many people will look back on the last 5 years as a horror show they never want to go near again in their lifetime.
I’m beginning to think Labour will be in power for 20 years.
I'm not a Conservative.
We'll see what Starmerism turns out to be - it's really hard to predict because he's shown so little indication of what his approach will be - but I included the possibility of Starmerism being overturned from within the Labour party. Whether Labour is in office for two decades, or not, I do not think Britain is in for a period of stable politics. There are large problems, that are difficult to solve, and a lot of rootless discontent sloshing about the political system as a result.
It could be that the Tory brand, and all the politicians associated with it, is so damaged that the voters won't go near it for a long time, but in that case the voter's discontent will manifest itself through other parties, or through factions within the Labour party. Cameron was PM for 6 years and 64 days. He wasn't brought down because the voters were ready to give Labour another go. I doubt very much that Starmer will have so long, but I don't see the Tories returning so soon either (thank God).
I'm instructing my financial advisor to advise me on protecting my assets against a potential confiscatory very left-wing Labour government.
It's perfectly possible Starmer gets dethroned, in office, for a Left-wing alternative like you say, and they utterly abuse the MP base they have in Parliament.
Well don't put it under your mattress, there appear to a lot of Reds under your bed.
Seriously, I wonder what legal options your financial adviser might suggest? Whatever they are, I'll warrant said IFA will be the only one to profit.
Who knows. One idea is to send some out the country and/or put it in a trusted relatives name.
But that holds risks in itself.
I could see (would vote for) a wealth tax of say 1-2% per annum on assets over say £1m. If that's what you class as 'confiscatory' it would likely cost you a larger percentage to avoid that.
I am genuinely intrigued that you fear such a threat.
No, much worse than that.
Go on - what does 'much worse than that' look like? What do you think is really a possibility at shall we say a >5% chance?
In West London, this level of property tax would push out anyone who wasn’t poor or on over £100k. Including those renting.
There are huge numbers of people who live there from the times before property went mad. Hence the interesting patch work of the redone houses with the expensive cars next to the down at heel looking places with the hatchback.
Increasing people’s bills by £1k a month would make the poll tax riots look tame.
I should have said, as I did in my next post, 'the exclusion of a principal private residence would be sensible.'
Most of our country’s wealth is in PPRs, so that would be self defeating.
“Wealth” is hard to tax. Real estate is easy. Make it a land value tax. We already pay something akin to this in our council tax and business rates. Reform council tax, give LAs or regions more tax raising powers and autonomy, and over time the new rebranded council tax can take up more of the national revenue base.
No, it would be limiting but not self-defeating.
Anyway, this was all in response to Casino's fear of a Labour government confiscating all his assets, a fear which I think is unfounded.
In many ways the difficulties others have raised with my idle-Sunday-morning-Wealth-Tax meanderings only reinforce the weirdness of Casino's confiscation fears. (I hesitate to use the word paranoia but... oh, I just have.)
Alistair Meeks, late of this parish, once wrote a very compelling article about a Corbynista government taking a confiscatory approach to private pensions in its search to raid funds for its spending programme.
I take that entirely seriously. And there are plenty of other countries around the world who've done similar things in the past, and suffered gravely for it.
That was a Corbynista government - you may not have noticed this but the Labour party are actively seeking power from a centralist ground (which isn't difficult because the Tories have gone insane right).
"Actively seeking power from a centralist ground" being the operative word.
Might be an idea to eat our own beef, and support British farming, rather than ship meat from the other side of the world.
Just an idea.
And, as a consumer, you absolutely have that choice. Buy British.
Unfortunately, meat-shaming is a massive thing in Met circles now. It's probably the thing, alongside "Diversity™", that comes up most often.
What a weird part of London I must live in where people talk about work, family, holidays, football, dating, hobbies rather than meat shaming and diversity. Fortunately we have people who don't live in cities to keep us up to date about how terrible our lives are, otherwise we might never have realised.
Mamchester City Council last year hung banners from its lampposts urging people to eat less meat. Seemed an odd use of public funds.
How disgusting.
Yet we see vegan food companies going bust, because few people want what they offer.
@Sean_F I don't see any reason why Blue Wall and Red Wall can't politically unite.
Firstly, there's been a convergence in attitudes there, not a divergence - the Red Wall represents rural/semi-rural seats that'd be reliably Tory in the South were it not for the coal-mining legacy - and, secondly, the Conservative offer of low taxes, low immigration, fiscal responsibility, stable government and strong defence has been one that, nominally, has been consistent since 2010 and before.
It's just they haven't delivered.
Some of that is bad luck. Much more is poor quality candidates, flawed leaders and terrible behaviour.
For some of the more despondent Conservative MPs, who privately admit they would prefer to be put out of their misery sooner rather than later, it is more a case of willing a Spring general election rather than actually believing that Sunak will go for it.
As one put it: “We need to rip the plaster off now because it is only going to get worse. It’s going to be an ever-increasing narrative of shit.”
@Sean_F I don't see any reason why Blue Wall and Red Wall can't politically unite.
Firstly, there's been a convergence in attitudes there, not a divergence - the Red Wall represents rural/semi-rural seats that'd be reliably Tory in the South were it not for the coal-mining legacy - and, secondly, the Conservative offer of low taxes, low immigration, fiscal responsibility, stable government and strong defence has been one that, nominally, has been consistent since 2010 and before.
It's just they haven't delivered.
Some of that is bad luck. Much more is poor quality candidates, flawed leaders and terrible behaviour.
So you are basically saying that because of the lack of (the Conservative offer) of low taxes, low immigration, fiscal responsibility, stable government and strong defence since 2010, both the Red Wall and Blue Wall have united in realising that the tory party are incompetent liars and are going to vote Labour because Labour can't be an incompetent and at least you know what you may get (albeit taxes will be higher but they need to be anyway because things are falling apart).
I think that's what they said in the 1970's too. And it was proven to be as stupid a sentiment then.
For people like William Keegan, they feel socially and culturally embarrassed to be a citizen of a country that's not a member.
From that, all things follow.
But it will never be enough for these idiots. Even in the UK were utterly subsumed within a European state, they would still cringe inwardly at their beef-scoffing tea-drinking origins. It's an outer solution to an inner issue. I honestly think the best thing for the most severe cases would be to end it all and hope they come back as a Belgian.
I think it's a bit strange that people should be so quick to say the red and blue walls cannot ever be reconciled, when this was achieved just over four years ago at GE 2019. If the polls are anywhere like accurate, then Labour are poised to reconcile three major groups in the electorate - metropolitan liberals, blue labour and conservative swing voters.
These groups are not reconciled due to the oratorical brilliance of Keir-Ends-In-R Starmer, but due to Starmer's success in blandifying the Labour party so as not to put any of the groups off, and the categorical imperative of finding a means for these groups to punish the Tories.
Achieving something in reverse for the Tories requires only a bit of experience of Labour in government, and a Tory leader who isn't trying to actively alienate one part of the voter coalition.
I like your counter to this, with the 2019 evidence to back up your point.
However … those cracks were in the Party for a long time and we kid ourselves to think otherwise. That divide is really what brought down John Major and it didn’t do Margaret Thatcher much good in the end either. It all boiled to the surface when @TSE ’s beloved Davey boy idiotically called the Brexit referendum, thinking in his Old Etonian arrogance that he would pull off the same stunt as indyref.
(If you want to see what a shit Cameron really is then DO read the finale to Suzanne Heywood’s What Does Jeremy Think?)
I still maintain that 2019 was unique. Even I, a remainer, was utterly exasperated at the antics of that Remainer Parliament and at just the right moment along came Boris, someone uniquely gifted at deception to hoodwink the British people. With mellifluous honey-coated lies he pulled in blue and red wall voters. My Surrey tory friend, totally disillusioned now with the Party, STILL ADORES Boris and would vote for him like a shot.
Assuming Boris doesn’t make a Lazarite comeback, there’s no one else of his ilk. Once in a century.
Yes, it's true to say that the splits had been in the Tory party for a long time - but then that is true of any governing party in Britain. There is no single cohesive group of voters that is large enough to win a majority on its own. So it's normal for a governing party to be sustained by a coalition of voters divided amongst itself, and those divisions will obviously come to the fore when the party is generally unpopular.
I don't see anything unusual with what is happening to the Tories now, and so I don't think it requires anything extraordinary to fix the situation.
Indeed, what seems to be a more volatile electorate means that there is potential for the fractured Tory coalition to come back together (very temporarily) more quickly than currently appears possible. The situation facing an incoming Labour government is much more difficult than that encountered in 1997.
Although the Tories have been in government for nearly 14 years now, I think that is misleading. They have had several reinventions in that time, and so the last 14 years have been a lot more like the 1970s, than the long periods of Thatcherite/Blairite rule in the 80s/90s/00s.
Whatever Starmerism turns out to be I would not bet on it lasting that long. It's quite likely to be overturned by something very different, either from within the Labour party, or without, by the end of the decade.
A good response but your last paragraph is a fig leaf I’ve noticed some Conservatives clinging onto i.e. the assumption that Starmer is going to fail.
Whilst I don’t underestimate the magnitude of problems facing this country, and I’m no longer convinced Labour will fix them, I suspect many people will look back on the last 5 years as a horror show they never want to go near again in their lifetime.
I’m beginning to think Labour will be in power for 20 years.
I'm not a Conservative.
We'll see what Starmerism turns out to be - it's really hard to predict because he's shown so little indication of what his approach will be - but I included the possibility of Starmerism being overturned from within the Labour party. Whether Labour is in office for two decades, or not, I do not think Britain is in for a period of stable politics. There are large problems, that are difficult to solve, and a lot of rootless discontent sloshing about the political system as a result.
It could be that the Tory brand, and all the politicians associated with it, is so damaged that the voters won't go near it for a long time, but in that case the voter's discontent will manifest itself through other parties, or through factions within the Labour party. Cameron was PM for 6 years and 64 days. He wasn't brought down because the voters were ready to give Labour another go. I doubt very much that Starmer will have so long, but I don't see the Tories returning so soon either (thank God).
I'm instructing my financial advisor to advise me on protecting my assets against a potential confiscatory very left-wing Labour government.
It's perfectly possible Starmer gets dethroned, in office, for a Left-wing alternative like you say, and they utterly abuse the MP base they have in Parliament.
Well don't put it under your mattress, there appear to a lot of Reds under your bed.
Seriously, I wonder what legal options your financial adviser might suggest? Whatever they are, I'll warrant said IFA will be the only one to profit.
Who knows. One idea is to send some out the country and/or put it in a trusted relatives name.
But that holds risks in itself.
I could see (would vote for) a wealth tax of say 1-2% per annum on assets over say £1m. If that's what you class as 'confiscatory' it would likely cost you a larger percentage to avoid that.
I am genuinely intrigued that you fear such a threat.
No, much worse than that.
Go on - what does 'much worse than that' look like? What do you think is really a possibility at shall we say a >5% chance?
In West London, this level of property tax would push out anyone who wasn’t poor or on over £100k. Including those renting.
There are huge numbers of people who live there from the times before property went mad. Hence the interesting patch work of the redone houses with the expensive cars next to the down at heel looking places with the hatchback.
Increasing people’s bills by £1k a month would make the poll tax riots look tame.
I should have said, as I did in my next post, 'the exclusion of a principal private residence would be sensible.'
The problem then is that putting money into property becomes, even more, the way to store wealth.
And round we go.
That won't drive up house prices though - lack of supply does that.
Build more houses and it won't matter if people want to put more money into their private residence, the value will be dictated by supply and demand.
I’ve begun to despair about house building. Nimbyism appears to unite the country in a way little else does. Rich and poor, Brexit and remain, left and right. All have this same muscle reflex to object to any proposed development. Even the relatively young are at it round here.
The thing is so all pervading that I hide my quiet yimbyism from the neighbours for fear of being considered a traitor.
I think the NIMBYism is exacerbated by the lack of public services. It's hard to argue for more housing when you can't even provide an NHS dentist for the existing population.
Even LTNs are a reaction to more housing, as previously quiet neighbourhoods become ratruns for new ones.
Around here it’s not that. It’s pure aesthetics. People not wanting their nice view across the rooftops spoiled by a new building.
I'm not suggesting it's the only reason. It's either a contributory factor, or a convenient mask for NIMBYism. It's impossible to argue against though, as I've witnessed in a few council meetings.
Convenient mask, definitely. In many cases anti-development campaigns are an objection looking for a reason. A selection of recent examples in this (urban, not exactly green belt) neck of the woods:
- Not in keeping with the local vernacular - Trees would need to be felled - Drainage during heavy rain - Affects sight lines along rooftops - Increased traffic - No parking spaces - Gentrification driving locals out - Was a pub (that nobody went in and has been closed for years) - Mews should be kept for traditional light industry
I shouldn’t complain really. We benefited from a very aggressive nimby campaign because our current house had been bought as a derelict shell by a business who wanted to turn it into a nursery. The locals were up in arms and the application failed. The owners then sold it on, to us.
On our local politics show we had a Lib Dem berating the Tory for the decline of the high streets, lack of growth, lack of development. When the interviewer pointed out she was opposing developments in the seat she is standing in it was the usual NIMBY guff. Wrong development for the area. Etc etc.
Might be an idea to eat our own beef, and support British farming, rather than ship meat from the other side of the world.
Just an idea.
And, as a consumer, you absolutely have that choice. Buy British.
Unfortunately, meat-shaming is a massive thing in Met circles now. It's probably the thing, alongside "Diversity™", that comes up most often.
Under your proposal I wouldn’t even be able to do that, as without origin labelling I’d have no way of telling where it was from!
It's very clear where fruit, vegetables, meat and fish are from - and they are always labelled, packaged or sourced as such.
Apologies because I realised I replied to you when I meant to reply to Bart - he was saying earlier that origin labelling was “protectionist bullshit”.
Yes, my SiL sent this image from her Reykjavik Hotel last night.
And it'll be releasing more carbon the the UK population does in a year probably.
Probably best that we ameliorate carbon output in the areas we do have control over then.
Yes, let's delete the economy and give up the idea of a national defence so we can eliminate a really socking portion of the 1% of manmade global CO2 emissions that we're responsible for, as part of the 2% of total global CO2 emissions that mankind is responsible for. Great plan.
@Sean_F I don't see any reason why Blue Wall and Red Wall can't politically unite.
Firstly, there's been a convergence in attitudes there, not a divergence - the Red Wall represents rural/semi-rural seats that'd be reliably Tory in the South were it not for the coal-mining legacy - and, secondly, the Conservative offer of low taxes, low immigration, fiscal responsibility, stable government and strong defence has been one that, nominally, has been consistent since 2010 and before.
It's just they haven't delivered.
Some of that is bad luck. Much more is poor quality candidates, flawed leaders and terrible behaviour.
So you are basically saying that because of the lack of (the Conservative offer) of low taxes, low immigration, fiscal responsibility, stable government and strong defence since 2010, both the Red Wall and Blue Wall have united in realising that the tory party are incompetent liars and are going to vote Labour because Labour can't be an incompetent and at least you know what you may get (albeit taxes will be higher but they need to be anyway because things are falling apart).
Your posts don't seem to go beyond basic partisan digs and grandstanding.
Please forgive me if I find that slightly too dull to engage with.
I think that's what they said in the 1970's too. And it was proven to be as stupid a sentiment then.
For people like William Keegan, they feel socially and culturally embarrassed to be a citizen of a country that's not a member.
From that, all things follow.
In intention, at any rate, the English intelligentsia are Europeanized. They take their cookery from Paris and their opinions from Moscow. In the general patriotism of the country they form a sort of island of dissident thought. England is perhaps the only great country whose intellectuals are ashamed of their own nationality. In left-wing circles it is always felt that there is something slightly disgraceful in being an Englishman and that it is a duty to snigger at every English institution, from horse racing to suet puddings. It is a strange fact, but it is unquestionably true that almost any English intellectual would feel more ashamed of standing to attention during ‘God Save the King’ than of stealing from a poor box.
Might be an idea to eat our own beef, and support British farming, rather than ship meat from the other side of the world.
Just an idea.
And, as a consumer, you absolutely have that choice. Buy British.
Unfortunately, meat-shaming is a massive thing in Met circles now. It's probably the thing, alongside "Diversity™", that comes up most often.
What a weird part of London I must live in where people talk about work, family, holidays, football, dating, hobbies rather than meat shaming and diversity. Fortunately we have people who don't live in cities to keep us up to date about how terrible our lives are, otherwise we might never have realised.
Mamchester City Council last year hung banners from its lampposts urging people to eat less meat. Seemed an odd use of public funds.
How disgusting.
Yet we see vegan food companies going bust, because few people want what they offer.
But, we also see such things endlessly promoted.
I am a member of a committee that goes on about vegetarian and vegan food for its catering at events every time we meet. I gently object but get a mixture of smiles and awkward moments back, and am then ignored.
I think it's a bit strange that people should be so quick to say the red and blue walls cannot ever be reconciled, when this was achieved just over four years ago at GE 2019. If the polls are anywhere like accurate, then Labour are poised to reconcile three major groups in the electorate - metropolitan liberals, blue labour and conservative swing voters.
These groups are not reconciled due to the oratorical brilliance of Keir-Ends-In-R Starmer, but due to Starmer's success in blandifying the Labour party so as not to put any of the groups off, and the categorical imperative of finding a means for these groups to punish the Tories.
Achieving something in reverse for the Tories requires only a bit of experience of Labour in government, and a Tory leader who isn't trying to actively alienate one part of the voter coalition.
I like your counter to this, with the 2019 evidence to back up your point.
However … those cracks were in the Party for a long time and we kid ourselves to think otherwise. That divide is really what brought down John Major and it didn’t do Margaret Thatcher much good in the end either. It all boiled to the surface when @TSE ’s beloved Davey boy idiotically called the Brexit referendum, thinking in his Old Etonian arrogance that he would pull off the same stunt as indyref.
(If you want to see what a shit Cameron really is then DO read the finale to Suzanne Heywood’s What Does Jeremy Think?)
I still maintain that 2019 was unique. Even I, a remainer, was utterly exasperated at the antics of that Remainer Parliament and at just the right moment along came Boris, someone uniquely gifted at deception to hoodwink the British people. With mellifluous honey-coated lies he pulled in blue and red wall voters. My Surrey tory friend, totally disillusioned now with the Party, STILL ADORES Boris and would vote for him like a shot.
Assuming Boris doesn’t make a Lazarite comeback, there’s no one else of his ilk. Once in a century.
Yes, it's true to say that the splits had been in the Tory party for a long time - but then that is true of any governing party in Britain. There is no single cohesive group of voters that is large enough to win a majority on its own. So it's normal for a governing party to be sustained by a coalition of voters divided amongst itself, and those divisions will obviously come to the fore when the party is generally unpopular.
I don't see anything unusual with what is happening to the Tories now, and so I don't think it requires anything extraordinary to fix the situation.
Indeed, what seems to be a more volatile electorate means that there is potential for the fractured Tory coalition to come back together (very temporarily) more quickly than currently appears possible. The situation facing an incoming Labour government is much more difficult than that encountered in 1997.
Although the Tories have been in government for nearly 14 years now, I think that is misleading. They have had several reinventions in that time, and so the last 14 years have been a lot more like the 1970s, than the long periods of Thatcherite/Blairite rule in the 80s/90s/00s.
Whatever Starmerism turns out to be I would not bet on it lasting that long. It's quite likely to be overturned by something very different, either from within the Labour party, or without, by the end of the decade.
A good response but your last paragraph is a fig leaf I’ve noticed some Conservatives clinging onto i.e. the assumption that Starmer is going to fail.
Whilst I don’t underestimate the magnitude of problems facing this country, and I’m no longer convinced Labour will fix them, I suspect many people will look back on the last 5 years as a horror show they never want to go near again in their lifetime.
I’m beginning to think Labour will be in power for 20 years.
I'm not a Conservative.
We'll see what Starmerism turns out to be - it's really hard to predict because he's shown so little indication of what his approach will be - but I included the possibility of Starmerism being overturned from within the Labour party. Whether Labour is in office for two decades, or not, I do not think Britain is in for a period of stable politics. There are large problems, that are difficult to solve, and a lot of rootless discontent sloshing about the political system as a result.
It could be that the Tory brand, and all the politicians associated with it, is so damaged that the voters won't go near it for a long time, but in that case the voter's discontent will manifest itself through other parties, or through factions within the Labour party. Cameron was PM for 6 years and 64 days. He wasn't brought down because the voters were ready to give Labour another go. I doubt very much that Starmer will have so long, but I don't see the Tories returning so soon either (thank God).
I'm instructing my financial advisor to advise me on protecting my assets against a potential confiscatory very left-wing Labour government.
It's perfectly possible Starmer gets dethroned, in office, for a Left-wing alternative like you say, and they utterly abuse the MP base they have in Parliament.
Well don't put it under your mattress, there appear to a lot of Reds under your bed.
Seriously, I wonder what legal options your financial adviser might suggest? Whatever they are, I'll warrant said IFA will be the only one to profit.
Who knows. One idea is to send some out the country and/or put it in a trusted relatives name.
But that holds risks in itself.
I could see (would vote for) a wealth tax of say 1-2% per annum on assets over say £1m. If that's what you class as 'confiscatory' it would likely cost you a larger percentage to avoid that.
I am genuinely intrigued that you fear such a threat.
No, much worse than that.
Go on - what does 'much worse than that' look like? What do you think is really a possibility at shall we say a >5% chance?
In West London, this level of property tax would push out anyone who wasn’t poor or on over £100k. Including those renting.
There are huge numbers of people who live there from the times before property went mad. Hence the interesting patch work of the redone houses with the expensive cars next to the down at heel looking places with the hatchback.
Increasing people’s bills by £1k a month would make the poll tax riots look tame.
I should have said, as I did in my next post, 'the exclusion of a principal private residence would be sensible.'
The problem then is that putting money into property becomes, even more, the way to store wealth.
And round we go.
That won't drive up house prices though - lack of supply does that.
Build more houses and it won't matter if people want to put more money into their private residence, the value will be dictated by supply and demand.
I’ve begun to despair about house building. Nimbyism appears to unite the country in a way little else does. Rich and poor, Brexit and remain, left and right. All have this same muscle reflex to object to any proposed development. Even the relatively young are at it round here.
The thing is so all pervading that I hide my quiet yimbyism from the neighbours for fear of being considered a traitor.
I think the NIMBYism is exacerbated by the lack of public services. It's hard to argue for more housing when you can't even provide an NHS dentist for the existing population.
Even LTNs are a reaction to more housing, as previously quiet neighbourhoods become ratruns for new ones.
Around here it’s not that. It’s pure aesthetics. People not wanting their nice view across the rooftops spoiled by a new building.
I'm not suggesting it's the only reason. It's either a contributory factor, or a convenient mask for NIMBYism. It's impossible to argue against though, as I've witnessed in a few council meetings.
Convenient mask, definitely. In many cases anti-development campaigns are an objection looking for a reason. A selection of recent examples in this (urban, not exactly green belt) neck of the woods:
- Not in keeping with the local vernacular - Trees would need to be felled - Drainage during heavy rain - Affects sight lines along rooftops - Increased traffic - No parking spaces - Gentrification driving locals out - Was a pub (that nobody went in and has been closed for years) - Mews should be kept for traditional light industry
I shouldn’t complain really. We benefited from a very aggressive nimby campaign because our current house had been bought as a derelict shell by a business who wanted to turn it into a nursery. The locals were up in arms and the application failed. The owners then sold it on, to us.
On our local politics show we had a Lib Dem berating the Tory for the decline of the high streets, lack of growth, lack of development. When the interviewer pointed out she was opposing developments in the seat she is standing in it was the usual NIMBY guff. Wrong development for the area. Etc etc.
I remember, back when I was on Hertsmere council. Absolute opposition to development was the one thing that united the parties. To the point where the Planning Committee voted to take enforcement action, against people who had erected rose arches and wendy houses in a Conservation Area. I was one of two out of ten who voted against.
Jails face explosion of violence due to shortage of ‘Tornado squad’ prison riot officers ... Justice secretary Alex Chalk is said to have warned Rishi Sunak that the overcrowding crisis could soon trigger a wave of riots.
Broken Britain. Politically significant too that Labour is on the case. (As an aside, most violent incidents are in women's prisons; you can make your own jokes about trans inmates.)
Morning. A grey pre-dawn light over Bolivar’s City of Death
Doesn't Instagram still exist?
On a completely unrelated note, have you heard of narcissistic personality disorder?
Yes you’re right. Thanks for asking
For the last 3 months solid (2 brief Feb days in London excepted) I’ve woken up to warm dry tropical sun. In Thailand, Cambodia or Colombia. Even when it’s too hot the mornings are always lovely - and yes you’re right, I get up and stroll naked into the morning sun on the balcony
That is how humans are meant to wake and rise. Your spirits lift at once: the world is kind. The coffee charges the brain, and off you go
London next week is going to be a horrible shock
Without that bitter and damp chill to compare it to, would you be able to enjoy that tropical sun quite so much?
The sun is shining in Yorkshire today. This is spring. It lifts the spirits. No need for a tropical miasma.
Nature coming back to life in the new year is always a delight - snowdrops, daffodils, blossom, bluebells - every week there's something new to see.
The magnolias are very impressive at the moment.
What is odd is that I don't remember noticing them until a few years ago.
Might I also suggest that all those people claiming to have mental health problems turn off social media and go for a walk.
They'll be able to see the new ducklings, goslings, calves and lambs together with the new plant life.
It's a bit early in the year (*), but going for an early-morning dawn walk can be a superb experience. Even in our semi-rural area, I see deer, rabbits, foxes and bats, very occasionally on the same walk or run. It's also a great way of starting the day.
(*) Dawn is a little late atm, so a fair few people are about.
I find giving apple and pear cores to cattle and rabbits very life affirming.
As well as an encouragement to eat fruit and go for a walk.
Misty and a fine smirr here in S Scotland, but we have just come back from a quiet walk, including watching a pair of dippers househunting - in the event inconclusively, but I've seen others courting next to that rock overhang at a small waterfall in the past so we will see.
I think that's what they said in the 1970's too. And it was proven to be as stupid a sentiment then.
For people like William Keegan, they feel socially and culturally embarrassed to be a citizen of a country that's not a member.
From that, all things follow.
In intention, at any rate, the English intelligentsia are Europeanized. They take their cookery from Paris and their opinions from Moscow. In the general patriotism of the country they form a sort of island of dissident thought. England is perhaps the only great country whose intellectuals are ashamed of their own nationality. In left-wing circles it is always felt that there is something slightly disgraceful in being an Englishman and that it is a duty to snigger at every English institution, from horse racing to suet puddings. It is a strange fact, but it is unquestionably true that almost any English intellectual would feel more ashamed of standing to attention during ‘God Save the King’ than of stealing from a poor box.
Should the Tories wish to avoid a collapse on the scale of Welsh rugby they need PM as PM. She's the only Conservative with credit with the voters. PM is a formidable campaigner and as her consort I'd strike her in a Britannia mode with chariot, spear and union shield pose !!
She'll likely keep the Tories above 200 seats which will provide a springboard for the 2028/9 GE as the Starmer government drown in a sea of debt.
Departing Chancellor Hunt note to Reeves. "There's £2.40 down the back of the sofa. Be quick though, it's on HP and the bailiffs are coming on Saturday."
Great to hear from you. I hope pie production is going well.
I thought Penny the best candidate in the post Johnson but was significantly underwhelmed by her campaign and debates. She really is quite devoid of ideas, and not willing to face down the Culture Warriors.
Possibly slightly better than Sunak, but marginally so, and the farce of a further leadership contest would not help the Tories.
I'm mortified to think that you believe that JackW as Penny's Consort would not enliven the moribund Tories. Dull is most certainly wouldn't be and with the added bonus that Penny sends the SNP crackers !! ..
Morning, Jack. My impression is that it's the other way round - she displays a very ugly side whenever she talks about Scotland.
SNP != Scotland. I think Mordaunt would lock in the rightish Unionist vote, making the Scottish Tory vote relatively strong.
I good litmus test for a Tory extinction event is whether even the Unionist vote abandons them in Moray, Aberdeenshire, the Borders. If they survive there, I think there is a sliver of hope for a sane Westminster parliamentary party.
Mm, yes. Trouble there is the way the Tories have kicked the farmers and fishing industry in the teeth of late.
Useless trying his best to help them , not happy with sending our money to his pals ..........
Hm, I wasn't aware that a MP was responsible for his parents holdings! Children, yes, as they would be in his control, but other relatives?
Did you read the article , he failed to register HIS interests
Does it say that? Instead of sneakily implying it? The wording is ambiguous in that Unionist tabloid way.
I think it's a bit strange that people should be so quick to say the red and blue walls cannot ever be reconciled, when this was achieved just over four years ago at GE 2019. If the polls are anywhere like accurate, then Labour are poised to reconcile three major groups in the electorate - metropolitan liberals, blue labour and conservative swing voters.
These groups are not reconciled due to the oratorical brilliance of Keir-Ends-In-R Starmer, but due to Starmer's success in blandifying the Labour party so as not to put any of the groups off, and the categorical imperative of finding a means for these groups to punish the Tories.
Achieving something in reverse for the Tories requires only a bit of experience of Labour in government, and a Tory leader who isn't trying to actively alienate one part of the voter coalition.
I like your counter to this, with the 2019 evidence to back up your point.
However … those cracks were in the Party for a long time and we kid ourselves to think otherwise. That divide is really what brought down John Major and it didn’t do Margaret Thatcher much good in the end either. It all boiled to the surface when @TSE ’s beloved Davey boy idiotically called the Brexit referendum, thinking in his Old Etonian arrogance that he would pull off the same stunt as indyref.
(If you want to see what a shit Cameron really is then DO read the finale to Suzanne Heywood’s What Does Jeremy Think?)
I still maintain that 2019 was unique. Even I, a remainer, was utterly exasperated at the antics of that Remainer Parliament and at just the right moment along came Boris, someone uniquely gifted at deception to hoodwink the British people. With mellifluous honey-coated lies he pulled in blue and red wall voters. My Surrey tory friend, totally disillusioned now with the Party, STILL ADORES Boris and would vote for him like a shot.
Assuming Boris doesn’t make a Lazarite comeback, there’s no one else of his ilk. Once in a century.
Yes, it's true to say that the splits had been in the Tory party for a long time - but then that is true of any governing party in Britain. There is no single cohesive group of voters that is large enough to win a majority on its own. So it's normal for a governing party to be sustained by a coalition of voters divided amongst itself, and those divisions will obviously come to the fore when the party is generally unpopular.
I don't see anything unusual with what is happening to the Tories now, and so I don't think it requires anything extraordinary to fix the situation.
Indeed, what seems to be a more volatile electorate means that there is potential for the fractured Tory coalition to come back together (very temporarily) more quickly than currently appears possible. The situation facing an incoming Labour government is much more difficult than that encountered in 1997.
Although the Tories have been in government for nearly 14 years now, I think that is misleading. They have had several reinventions in that time, and so the last 14 years have been a lot more like the 1970s, than the long periods of Thatcherite/Blairite rule in the 80s/90s/00s.
Whatever Starmerism turns out to be I would not bet on it lasting that long. It's quite likely to be overturned by something very different, either from within the Labour party, or without, by the end of the decade.
A good response but your last paragraph is a fig leaf I’ve noticed some Conservatives clinging onto i.e. the assumption that Starmer is going to fail.
Whilst I don’t underestimate the magnitude of problems facing this country, and I’m no longer convinced Labour will fix them, I suspect many people will look back on the last 5 years as a horror show they never want to go near again in their lifetime.
I’m beginning to think Labour will be in power for 20 years.
I'm not a Conservative.
We'll see what Starmerism turns out to be - it's really hard to predict because he's shown so little indication of what his approach will be - but I included the possibility of Starmerism being overturned from within the Labour party. Whether Labour is in office for two decades, or not, I do not think Britain is in for a period of stable politics. There are large problems, that are difficult to solve, and a lot of rootless discontent sloshing about the political system as a result.
It could be that the Tory brand, and all the politicians associated with it, is so damaged that the voters won't go near it for a long time, but in that case the voter's discontent will manifest itself through other parties, or through factions within the Labour party. Cameron was PM for 6 years and 64 days. He wasn't brought down because the voters were ready to give Labour another go. I doubt very much that Starmer will have so long, but I don't see the Tories returning so soon either (thank God).
I'm instructing my financial advisor to advise me on protecting my assets against a potential confiscatory very left-wing Labour government.
It's perfectly possible Starmer gets dethroned, in office, for a Left-wing alternative like you say, and they utterly abuse the MP base they have in Parliament.
Well don't put it under your mattress, there appear to a lot of Reds under your bed.
Seriously, I wonder what legal options your financial adviser might suggest? Whatever they are, I'll warrant said IFA will be the only one to profit.
Who knows. One idea is to send some out the country and/or put it in a trusted relatives name.
But that holds risks in itself.
I could see (would vote for) a wealth tax of say 1-2% per annum on assets over say £1m. If that's what you class as 'confiscatory' it would likely cost you a larger percentage to avoid that.
I am genuinely intrigued that you fear such a threat.
No, much worse than that.
Go on - what does 'much worse than that' look like? What do you think is really a possibility at shall we say a >5% chance?
In West London, this level of property tax would push out anyone who wasn’t poor or on over £100k. Including those renting.
There are huge numbers of people who live there from the times before property went mad. Hence the interesting patch work of the redone houses with the expensive cars next to the down at heel looking places with the hatchback.
Increasing people’s bills by £1k a month would make the poll tax riots look tame.
I should have said, as I did in my next post, 'the exclusion of a principal private residence would be sensible.'
The problem then is that putting money into property becomes, even more, the way to store wealth.
And round we go.
That won't drive up house prices though - lack of supply does that.
Build more houses and it won't matter if people want to put more money into their private residence, the value will be dictated by supply and demand.
I’ve begun to despair about house building. Nimbyism appears to unite the country in a way little else does. Rich and poor, Brexit and remain, left and right. All have this same muscle reflex to object to any proposed development. Even the relatively young are at it round here.
The thing is so all pervading that I hide my quiet yimbyism from the neighbours for fear of being considered a traitor.
I think the NIMBYism is exacerbated by the lack of public services. It's hard to argue for more housing when you can't even provide an NHS dentist for the existing population.
Even LTNs are a reaction to more housing, as previously quiet neighbourhoods become ratruns for new ones.
Around here it’s not that. It’s pure aesthetics. People not wanting their nice view across the rooftops spoiled by a new building.
I'm not suggesting it's the only reason. It's either a contributory factor, or a convenient mask for NIMBYism. It's impossible to argue against though, as I've witnessed in a few council meetings.
Convenient mask, definitely. In many cases anti-development campaigns are an objection looking for a reason. A selection of recent examples in this (urban, not exactly green belt) neck of the woods:
- Not in keeping with the local vernacular - Trees would need to be felled - Drainage during heavy rain - Affects sight lines along rooftops - Increased traffic - No parking spaces - Gentrification driving locals out - Was a pub (that nobody went in and has been closed for years) - Mews should be kept for traditional light industry
I shouldn’t complain really. We benefited from a very aggressive nimby campaign because our current house had been bought as a derelict shell by a business who wanted to turn it into a nursery. The locals were up in arms and the application failed. The owners then sold it on, to us.
On our local politics show we had a Lib Dem berating the Tory for the decline of the high streets, lack of growth, lack of development. When the interviewer pointed out she was opposing developments in the seat she is standing in it was the usual NIMBY guff. Wrong development for the area. Etc etc.
I remember, back when I was on Hertsmere council. Absolute opposition to development was the one thing that united the parties. To the point where the Planning Committee voted to take enforcement action, against people who had erected rose arches and wendy houses in a Conservation Area. I was one of two out of ten who voted against.
It was ever so nice of that council in Oxfordshire to let Jeremy Clarkson’s camera crew turn up to their planning meeting, so the world could see what an utter bunch of arseholes they are. They’d clearly decided in advance that they didn’t like the guy, and weren’t interested in his arguments and those of the rural communities trying to scratch a living.
Might be an idea to eat our own beef, and support British farming, rather than ship meat from the other side of the world.
Just an idea.
And, as a consumer, you absolutely have that choice. Buy British.
Unfortunately, meat-shaming is a massive thing in Met circles now. It's probably the thing, alongside "Diversity™", that comes up most often.
What a weird part of London I must live in where people talk about work, family, holidays, football, dating, hobbies rather than meat shaming and diversity. Fortunately we have people who don't live in cities to keep us up to date about how terrible our lives are, otherwise we might never have realised.
Mamchester City Council last year hung banners from its lampposts urging people to eat less meat. Seemed an odd use of public funds.
How disgusting.
Yet we see vegan food companies going bust, because few people want what they offer.
But, we also see such things endlessly promoted.
I am a member of a committee that goes on about vegetarian and vegan food for its catering at events every time we meet. I gently object but get a mixture of smiles and awkward moments back, and am then ignored.
I was at a conference at the Royal College of Physicians a couple of weeks ago. All vegan food. Absolutely banging. Best food I’ve had at an event for many years.
Might be an idea to eat our own beef, and support British farming, rather than ship meat from the other side of the world.
Just an idea.
And, as a consumer, you absolutely have that choice. Buy British.
Unfortunately, meat-shaming is a massive thing in Met circles now. It's probably the thing, alongside "Diversity™", that comes up most often.
What a weird part of London I must live in where people talk about work, family, holidays, football, dating, hobbies rather than meat shaming and diversity. Fortunately we have people who don't live in cities to keep us up to date about how terrible our lives are, otherwise we might never have realised.
Mamchester City Council last year hung banners from its lampposts urging people to eat less meat. Seemed an odd use of public funds.
How disgusting.
Yet we see vegan food companies going bust, because few people want what they offer.
But, we also see such things endlessly promoted.
I am a member of a committee that goes on about vegetarian and vegan food for its catering at events every time we meet. I gently object but get a mixture of smiles and awkward moments back, and am then ignored.
You do have to cater for vegans (and by definition vegetarians) but if that's the only food there few people are going to rush to attend.
One problem with vegan food is that good vegan food isn't cheap
I think that's what they said in the 1970's too. And it was proven to be as stupid a sentiment then.
For people like William Keegan, they feel socially and culturally embarrassed to be a citizen of a country that's not a member.
From that, all things follow.
In intention, at any rate, the English intelligentsia are Europeanized. They take their cookery from Paris and their opinions from Moscow. In the general patriotism of the country they form a sort of island of dissident thought. England is perhaps the only great country whose intellectuals are ashamed of their own nationality. In left-wing circles it is always felt that there is something slightly disgraceful in being an Englishman and that it is a duty to snigger at every English institution, from horse racing to suet puddings. It is a strange fact, but it is unquestionably true that almost any English intellectual would feel more ashamed of standing to attention during ‘God Save the King’ than of stealing from a poor box.
I always found this a bit parochial of Orwell. Intellectuals in most countries are frequently critical of existing power structures, mistrustful of patriotism and international in outlook. Where it differs it's frequently in a post colonial setting, when intellectuals were likely influential in the independence movement and stirred to patriotism. Once that period wears off they start to look a lot more like the British intellectuals that Orwell apparently despised so much (despite being a leading example thereof).
I think it's a bit strange that people should be so quick to say the red and blue walls cannot ever be reconciled, when this was achieved just over four years ago at GE 2019. If the polls are anywhere like accurate, then Labour are poised to reconcile three major groups in the electorate - metropolitan liberals, blue labour and conservative swing voters.
These groups are not reconciled due to the oratorical brilliance of Keir-Ends-In-R Starmer, but due to Starmer's success in blandifying the Labour party so as not to put any of the groups off, and the categorical imperative of finding a means for these groups to punish the Tories.
Achieving something in reverse for the Tories requires only a bit of experience of Labour in government, and a Tory leader who isn't trying to actively alienate one part of the voter coalition.
I like your counter to this, with the 2019 evidence to back up your point.
However … those cracks were in the Party for a long time and we kid ourselves to think otherwise. That divide is really what brought down John Major and it didn’t do Margaret Thatcher much good in the end either. It all boiled to the surface when @TSE ’s beloved Davey boy idiotically called the Brexit referendum, thinking in his Old Etonian arrogance that he would pull off the same stunt as indyref.
(If you want to see what a shit Cameron really is then DO read the finale to Suzanne Heywood’s What Does Jeremy Think?)
I still maintain that 2019 was unique. Even I, a remainer, was utterly exasperated at the antics of that Remainer Parliament and at just the right moment along came Boris, someone uniquely gifted at deception to hoodwink the British people. With mellifluous honey-coated lies he pulled in blue and red wall voters. My Surrey tory friend, totally disillusioned now with the Party, STILL ADORES Boris and would vote for him like a shot.
Assuming Boris doesn’t make a Lazarite comeback, there’s no one else of his ilk. Once in a century.
Yes, it's true to say that the splits had been in the Tory party for a long time - but then that is true of any governing party in Britain. There is no single cohesive group of voters that is large enough to win a majority on its own. So it's normal for a governing party to be sustained by a coalition of voters divided amongst itself, and those divisions will obviously come to the fore when the party is generally unpopular.
I don't see anything unusual with what is happening to the Tories now, and so I don't think it requires anything extraordinary to fix the situation.
Indeed, what seems to be a more volatile electorate means that there is potential for the fractured Tory coalition to come back together (very temporarily) more quickly than currently appears possible. The situation facing an incoming Labour government is much more difficult than that encountered in 1997.
Although the Tories have been in government for nearly 14 years now, I think that is misleading. They have had several reinventions in that time, and so the last 14 years have been a lot more like the 1970s, than the long periods of Thatcherite/Blairite rule in the 80s/90s/00s.
Whatever Starmerism turns out to be I would not bet on it lasting that long. It's quite likely to be overturned by something very different, either from within the Labour party, or without, by the end of the decade.
A good response but your last paragraph is a fig leaf I’ve noticed some Conservatives clinging onto i.e. the assumption that Starmer is going to fail.
Whilst I don’t underestimate the magnitude of problems facing this country, and I’m no longer convinced Labour will fix them, I suspect many people will look back on the last 5 years as a horror show they never want to go near again in their lifetime.
I’m beginning to think Labour will be in power for 20 years.
I'm not a Conservative.
We'll see what Starmerism turns out to be - it's really hard to predict because he's shown so little indication of what his approach will be - but I included the possibility of Starmerism being overturned from within the Labour party. Whether Labour is in office for two decades, or not, I do not think Britain is in for a period of stable politics. There are large problems, that are difficult to solve, and a lot of rootless discontent sloshing about the political system as a result.
It could be that the Tory brand, and all the politicians associated with it, is so damaged that the voters won't go near it for a long time, but in that case the voter's discontent will manifest itself through other parties, or through factions within the Labour party. Cameron was PM for 6 years and 64 days. He wasn't brought down because the voters were ready to give Labour another go. I doubt very much that Starmer will have so long, but I don't see the Tories returning so soon either (thank God).
I'm instructing my financial advisor to advise me on protecting my assets against a potential confiscatory very left-wing Labour government.
It's perfectly possible Starmer gets dethroned, in office, for a Left-wing alternative like you say, and they utterly abuse the MP base they have in Parliament.
Highest tax take under the Conservatives but you're worried about reds under Kier Starmer's bed?
On which note, here is Mark Lawrenson on Liverpool players' joy when Mrs Thatcher's government cut the top rate of income tax to 60 per cent. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wHSydJu_zg
I'm worried about private pensions and ISA investments being confiscated and annual wealth taxes on ordinary property.
The Conservatives freezing tax allowances to deal with the fallout from Covid, Ukraine and interest rates going back to normal doesn't come close.
The only way to avoid that would be to move abroad. Sadly with Brexit your options are going to be Australia and New Zealand because Europe probably isn't an option anymore...
However on the first point - got to say you are completely and utterly cuckoo. The last one is more plausible but it needs to be implemented anyway because currently council tax is a completely unfair lottery....
Not "sadly with Brexit": Europe was never an option. This is just a values thing.
The EU doesn't 'do' professional services, and it's nigh-on impossible to get a job there in them anyway. The work is in MENA, Hong Kong, Australia, NZ, Canada and the US.
That's it.
Personally, I love my country; I've never visited anywhere else I would rather live.
Reading your comment on Blackmore Vale the other day and the deer reminded me of our last holiday in Dorset - went for a walk on Eggardon and saw a herd of deer incluiding some albino down in the valley. Magnificent outing.
It was ever so nice of that council in Oxfordshire to let Jeremy Clarkson’s camera crew turn up to their planning meeting, so the world could see what an utter bunch of arseholes they are. They’d clearly decided in advance that they didn’t like the guy, and weren’t interested in his arguments and those of the rural communities trying to scratch a living.
Clarkson's column in The Times today is about how much better farming would be if Defra was abolished
Might be an idea to eat our own beef, and support British farming, rather than ship meat from the other side of the world.
Just an idea.
And, as a consumer, you absolutely have that choice. Buy British.
Unfortunately, meat-shaming is a massive thing in Met circles now. It's probably the thing, alongside "Diversity™", that comes up most often.
What a weird part of London I must live in where people talk about work, family, holidays, football, dating, hobbies rather than meat shaming and diversity. Fortunately we have people who don't live in cities to keep us up to date about how terrible our lives are, otherwise we might never have realised.
"Met" means liberal metropolitan elite leaders who run organisations, companies and third sector institutions.
Not ordinary people who live in urban cities. But you knew that.
How would he know it? I've never heard the word used in that context before, the Met is London's beleaguered police force, or alternatively an art museum in New York, and met is the past firm of the verb to meet. I've never seen the usage you are referring to before, has anybody else?
Might be an idea to eat our own beef, and support British farming, rather than ship meat from the other side of the world.
Just an idea.
And, as a consumer, you absolutely have that choice. Buy British.
Unfortunately, meat-shaming is a massive thing in Met circles now. It's probably the thing, alongside "Diversity™", that comes up most often.
What a weird part of London I must live in where people talk about work, family, holidays, football, dating, hobbies rather than meat shaming and diversity. Fortunately we have people who don't live in cities to keep us up to date about how terrible our lives are, otherwise we might never have realised.
It must be quite exhausting imagining what people in London are thinking about all the time, I wonder if there is any time left over for thoughts of their own?
Again, imagining what you think I must have meant rather than what I actually did.
And, wilfully so. Still, you got a few reflexive likes out of it - so I'm sure you're happy.
Ooh did I get some likes? Be still my beating heart.
Might be an idea to eat our own beef, and support British farming, rather than ship meat from the other side of the world.
Just an idea.
And, as a consumer, you absolutely have that choice. Buy British.
Unfortunately, meat-shaming is a massive thing in Met circles now. It's probably the thing, alongside "Diversity™", that comes up most often.
What a weird part of London I must live in where people talk about work, family, holidays, football, dating, hobbies rather than meat shaming and diversity. Fortunately we have people who don't live in cities to keep us up to date about how terrible our lives are, otherwise we might never have realised.
"Met" means liberal metropolitan elite leaders who run organisations, companies and third sector institutions.
Not ordinary people who live in urban cities. But you knew that.
How would he know it? I've never heard the word used in that context before, the Met is London's beleaguered police force, or alternatively an art museum in New York, and met is the past firm of the verb to meet. I've never seen the usage you are referring to before, has anybody else?
It was ever so nice of that council in Oxfordshire to let Jeremy Clarkson’s camera crew turn up to their planning meeting, so the world could see what an utter bunch of arseholes they are. They’d clearly decided in advance that they didn’t like the guy, and weren’t interested in his arguments and those of the rural communities trying to scratch a living.
Clarkson's column in The Times today is about how much better farming would be if Defra was abolished
Similarly, my posts on education start with the undoubtedly correct premise that education in this country would be far better if the DfE were abolished.
But - that requires getting rid of the functions that they've invented to bolster their existence that are no good to man nor beast, rather than just shooting them all out of hand.
Might be an idea to eat our own beef, and support British farming, rather than ship meat from the other side of the world.
Just an idea.
And, as a consumer, you absolutely have that choice. Buy British.
Unfortunately, meat-shaming is a massive thing in Met circles now. It's probably the thing, alongside "Diversity™", that comes up most often.
What a weird part of London I must live in where people talk about work, family, holidays, football, dating, hobbies rather than meat shaming and diversity. Fortunately we have people who don't live in cities to keep us up to date about how terrible our lives are, otherwise we might never have realised.
"Met" means liberal metropolitan elite leaders who run organisations, companies and third sector institutions.
Not ordinary people who live in urban cities. But you knew that.
How would he know it? I've never heard the word used in that context before, the Met is London's beleaguered police force, or alternatively an art museum in New York, and met is the past firm of the verb to meet. I've never seen the usage you are referring to before, has anybody else?
Not me.
Not me. Overwhelmingly the London polis, or the NY art museum. Maybe it's a terminology used in specialised circles.
Might be an idea to eat our own beef, and support British farming, rather than ship meat from the other side of the world.
Just an idea.
And, as a consumer, you absolutely have that choice. Buy British.
Unfortunately, meat-shaming is a massive thing in Met circles now. It's probably the thing, alongside "Diversity™", that comes up most often.
What a weird part of London I must live in where people talk about work, family, holidays, football, dating, hobbies rather than meat shaming and diversity. Fortunately we have people who don't live in cities to keep us up to date about how terrible our lives are, otherwise we might never have realised.
"Met" means liberal metropolitan elite leaders who run organisations, companies and third sector institutions.
Not ordinary people who live in urban cities. But you knew that.
How would he know it? I've never heard the word used in that context before, the Met is London's beleaguered police force, or alternatively an art museum in New York, and met is the past firm of the verb to meet. I've never seen the usage you are referring to before, has anybody else?
Lib Dem leader Sir Ed Davey tells the party’s spring conference that Rishi Sunak “sounds like he’s already given up” and that setting the election date is “pretty much the only thing left” that he controls anymore.
Might be an idea to eat our own beef, and support British farming, rather than ship meat from the other side of the world.
Just an idea.
And, as a consumer, you absolutely have that choice. Buy British.
Unfortunately, meat-shaming is a massive thing in Met circles now. It's probably the thing, alongside "Diversity™", that comes up most often.
What a weird part of London I must live in where people talk about work, family, holidays, football, dating, hobbies rather than meat shaming and diversity. Fortunately we have people who don't live in cities to keep us up to date about how terrible our lives are, otherwise we might never have realised.
"Met" means liberal metropolitan elite leaders who run organisations, companies and third sector institutions.
Not ordinary people who live in urban cities. But you knew that.
How would he know it? I've never heard the word used in that context before, the Met is London's beleaguered police force, or alternatively an art museum in New York, and met is the past firm of the verb to meet. I've never seen the usage you are referring to before, has anybody else?
Not me.
I inferred meaning from context but I'd never seen it used that way before. I assumed it was an online term that had repurposed the original word. If true, this has happened before when the word "iconoclasm" was used to describe Culture War statue destruction as distinct from its historical usage.
So we have all learned something today, so it was a good day.
Might be an idea to eat our own beef, and support British farming, rather than ship meat from the other side of the world.
Just an idea.
And, as a consumer, you absolutely have that choice. Buy British.
Unfortunately, meat-shaming is a massive thing in Met circles now. It's probably the thing, alongside "Diversity™", that comes up most often.
What a weird part of London I must live in where people talk about work, family, holidays, football, dating, hobbies rather than meat shaming and diversity. Fortunately we have people who don't live in cities to keep us up to date about how terrible our lives are, otherwise we might never have realised.
"Met" means liberal metropolitan elite leaders who run organisations, companies and third sector institutions.
Not ordinary people who live in urban cities. But you knew that.
How would he know it? I've never heard the word used in that context before, the Met is London's beleaguered police force, or alternatively an art museum in New York, and met is the past firm of the verb to meet. I've never seen the usage you are referring to before, has anybody else?
Not me.
Not me. Overwhelmingly the London polis, or the NY art museum. Maybe it's a terminology used in specialised circles.
The capital M was very confusing and possibly virtue signalling.
It was ever so nice of that council in Oxfordshire to let Jeremy Clarkson’s camera crew turn up to their planning meeting, so the world could see what an utter bunch of arseholes they are. They’d clearly decided in advance that they didn’t like the guy, and weren’t interested in his arguments and those of the rural communities trying to scratch a living.
Clarkson's column in The Times today is about how much better farming would be if Defra was abolished
Similarly, my posts on education start with the undoubtedly correct premise that education in this country would be far better if the DfE were abolished.
But - that requires getting rid of the functions that they've invented to bolster their existence that are no good to man nor beast, rather than just shooting them all out of hand.
Milei is on the phone. I don't know what "Te dije que eso era lo correcto" means.
Might be an idea to eat our own beef, and support British farming, rather than ship meat from the other side of the world.
Just an idea.
And, as a consumer, you absolutely have that choice. Buy British.
Unfortunately, meat-shaming is a massive thing in Met circles now. It's probably the thing, alongside "Diversity™", that comes up most often.
What a weird part of London I must live in where people talk about work, family, holidays, football, dating, hobbies rather than meat shaming and diversity. Fortunately we have people who don't live in cities to keep us up to date about how terrible our lives are, otherwise we might never have realised.
"Met" means liberal metropolitan elite leaders who run organisations, companies and third sector institutions.
Not ordinary people who live in urban cities. But you knew that.
How would he know it? I've never heard the word used in that context before, the Met is London's beleaguered police force, or alternatively an art museum in New York, and met is the past firm of the verb to meet. I've never seen the usage you are referring to before, has anybody else?
Not me.
I inferred meaning from context but I'd never seen it used that way before. I assumed it was an online term that had repurposed the original word. If true, this has happened before when the word "iconoclasm" was used to describe Culture War statue destruction as distinct from its historical usage.
So we have all learned something today, so it was a good day.
You know, debasing the Queen's English and all that. Like how the right are always complaining.
Might be an idea to eat our own beef, and support British farming, rather than ship meat from the other side of the world.
Just an idea.
And, as a consumer, you absolutely have that choice. Buy British.
Unfortunately, meat-shaming is a massive thing in Met circles now. It's probably the thing, alongside "Diversity™", that comes up most often.
What a weird part of London I must live in where people talk about work, family, holidays, football, dating, hobbies rather than meat shaming and diversity. Fortunately we have people who don't live in cities to keep us up to date about how terrible our lives are, otherwise we might never have realised.
"Met" means liberal metropolitan elite leaders who run organisations, companies and third sector institutions.
Not ordinary people who live in urban cities. But you knew that.
How would he know it? I've never heard the word used in that context before, the Met is London's beleaguered police force, or alternatively an art museum in New York, and met is the past firm of the verb to meet. I've never seen the usage you are referring to before, has anybody else?
Not me.
Not me. Overwhelmingly the London polis, or the NY art museum. Maybe it's a terminology used in specialised circles.
The capital M was very confusing and possibly virtue signalling.
Oh, so it is. So we are to infer that meteorologists have got all upset at the thought of meat? Mind, given the climatic impact, perhaps that does make sense.
Might be an idea to eat our own beef, and support British farming, rather than ship meat from the other side of the world.
Just an idea.
British people don't eat all of the carcass. So the bits they don't eat are exported, and more of the bits they do eat are imported. It's a sensible trade in the circumstances of British people not eating all of the carcass.
Dan Neidle has some very interesting polling (and thread / report) on increasing Tax to pay for a better NHS - end result is that while in 2019 or so people were happy to do so now they aren't
I suspect the reality is that people think they are being taxed too much already and so they don't want it spent on anything.
Which probably comes down to the fact that we seem to being taxed an awful lot but it's not at all obvious where the money is actually going and being spent...
Might be an idea to eat our own beef, and support British farming, rather than ship meat from the other side of the world.
Just an idea.
And, as a consumer, you absolutely have that choice. Buy British.
Unfortunately, meat-shaming is a massive thing in Met circles now. It's probably the thing, alongside "Diversity™", that comes up most often.
What a weird part of London I must live in where people talk about work, family, holidays, football, dating, hobbies rather than meat shaming and diversity. Fortunately we have people who don't live in cities to keep us up to date about how terrible our lives are, otherwise we might never have realised.
Mamchester City Council last year hung banners from its lampposts urging people to eat less meat. Seemed an odd use of public funds.
How disgusting.
Yet we see vegan food companies going bust, because few people want what they offer.
But, we also see such things endlessly promoted.
I am a member of a committee that goes on about vegetarian and vegan food for its catering at events every time we meet. I gently object but get a mixture of smiles and awkward moments back, and am then ignored.
You do have to cater for vegans (and by definition vegetarians) but if that's the only food there few people are going to rush to attend.
One problem with vegan food is that good vegan food isn't cheap
That argument has also been made.
Anything but people don't like it and don't want it.
It was ever so nice of that council in Oxfordshire to let Jeremy Clarkson’s camera crew turn up to their planning meeting, so the world could see what an utter bunch of arseholes they are. They’d clearly decided in advance that they didn’t like the guy, and weren’t interested in his arguments and those of the rural communities trying to scratch a living.
Clarkson's column in The Times today is about how much better farming would be if Defra was abolished
Similarly, my posts on education start with the undoubtedly correct premise that education in this country would be far better if the DfE were abolished.
But - that requires getting rid of the functions that they've invented to bolster their existence that are no good to man nor beast, rather than just shooting them all out of hand.
Milei is on the phone. I don't know what "Te dije que eso era lo correcto" means.
Might be an idea to eat our own beef, and support British farming, rather than ship meat from the other side of the world.
Just an idea.
And, as a consumer, you absolutely have that choice. Buy British.
Unfortunately, meat-shaming is a massive thing in Met circles now. It's probably the thing, alongside "Diversity™", that comes up most often.
What a weird part of London I must live in where people talk about work, family, holidays, football, dating, hobbies rather than meat shaming and diversity. Fortunately we have people who don't live in cities to keep us up to date about how terrible our lives are, otherwise we might never have realised.
"Met" means liberal metropolitan elite leaders who run organisations, companies and third sector institutions.
Not ordinary people who live in urban cities. But you knew that.
How would he know it? I've never heard the word used in that context before, the Met is London's beleaguered police force, or alternatively an art museum in New York, and met is the past firm of the verb to meet. I've never seen the usage you are referring to before, has anybody else?
It's used regularly on here by me and others, and elsewhere.
Dan Neidle has some very interesting polling (and thread / report) on increasing Tax to pay for a better NHS - end result is that while in 2019 or so people were happy to do so now they aren't
I suspect the reality is that people think they are being taxed too much already and so they don't want it spent on anything.
Which probably comes down to the fact that we seem to being taxed an awful lot but it's not at all obvious where the money is actually going and being spent...
The majority of it is going on pensions & elderly care (both in & out of the NHS). IIRC more than half my local authority budget goes on social care.
People just don’t want to accept how much this stuff costs.
Might be an idea to eat our own beef, and support British farming, rather than ship meat from the other side of the world.
Just an idea.
And, as a consumer, you absolutely have that choice. Buy British.
Unfortunately, meat-shaming is a massive thing in Met circles now. It's probably the thing, alongside "Diversity™", that comes up most often.
What a weird part of London I must live in where people talk about work, family, holidays, football, dating, hobbies rather than meat shaming and diversity. Fortunately we have people who don't live in cities to keep us up to date about how terrible our lives are, otherwise we might never have realised.
Mamchester City Council last year hung banners from its lampposts urging people to eat less meat. Seemed an odd use of public funds.
How disgusting.
Yet we see vegan food companies going bust, because few people want what they offer.
But, we also see such things endlessly promoted.
I am a member of a committee that goes on about vegetarian and vegan food for its catering at events every time we meet. I gently object but get a mixture of smiles and awkward moments back, and am then ignored.
I was at a conference at the Royal College of Physicians a couple of weeks ago. All vegan food. Absolutely banging. Best food I’ve had at an event for many years.
Then, you are in a small minority.
Most of the physicians will eat anything but outside of work. Like celebrating IWD, LGBT+ history month and BHM this is just something that all organisations now feel they ought to be doing and promoting.
... the Conservative offer of low taxes, low immigration, fiscal responsibility, stable government and strong defence..
Reproduced without comment for hopefully obvious reasons.
Some very good news today for the Tories. After last years much reduced boat crossings, The SKY News data and forensics team latest on stop the boats pledge, is lower now compared with last years totals.
If they are feeling pressure from Reform, this fact check on stopping boats IS excellent soundbite to keep using everywhere in April campaigning, leaflets, doorsteps, media ads, HoC, interviews.
I still think Rishi will call the general Election campaign for 2nd May, any day this week. Who’s 100% sure he won’t?
It was ever so nice of that council in Oxfordshire to let Jeremy Clarkson’s camera crew turn up to their planning meeting, so the world could see what an utter bunch of arseholes they are. They’d clearly decided in advance that they didn’t like the guy, and weren’t interested in his arguments and those of the rural communities trying to scratch a living.
Clarkson's column in The Times today is about how much better farming would be if Defra was abolished
Similarly, my posts on education start with the undoubtedly correct premise that education in this country would be far better if the DfE were abolished.
But - that requires getting rid of the functions that they've invented to bolster their existence that are no good to man nor beast, rather than just shooting them all out of hand.
When people wonder why they get such a poor return for the money they pay in tax, that's probably a large part of the answer. Government departments being run for the benefit of the people who manage them, and inventing such functions. The people who run them believe that there is a correct bureaucratic solution to every social ill.
Dan Neidle has some very interesting polling (and thread / report) on increasing Tax to pay for a better NHS - end result is that while in 2019 or so people were happy to do so now they aren't
I suspect the reality is that people think they are being taxed too much already and so they don't want it spent on anything.
Which probably comes down to the fact that we seem to being taxed an awful lot but it's not at all obvious where the money is actually going and being spent...
The majority of it is going on pensions & elderly care (both in & out of the NHS). IIRC more than half my local authority budget goes on social care.
People just don’t want to accept how much this stuff costs.
I see a levy in my council tax bill for Adult Social Care.
(Sarcasm here) you are telling me that £174 per house isn't enough to pay all the costs...
But there is a wider point here - the visible things that councils / Government are known to be responsible for seem to be falling apart yet the amount we spend on tax is continually going up yet papers talk about further cuts...
Might be an idea to eat our own beef, and support British farming, rather than ship meat from the other side of the world.
Just an idea.
And, as a consumer, you absolutely have that choice. Buy British.
Unfortunately, meat-shaming is a massive thing in Met circles now. It's probably the thing, alongside "Diversity™", that comes up most often.
What a weird part of London I must live in where people talk about work, family, holidays, football, dating, hobbies rather than meat shaming and diversity. Fortunately we have people who don't live in cities to keep us up to date about how terrible our lives are, otherwise we might never have realised.
Mamchester City Council last year hung banners from its lampposts urging people to eat less meat. Seemed an odd use of public funds.
How disgusting.
Yet we see vegan food companies going bust, because few people want what they offer.
But, we also see such things endlessly promoted.
I am a member of a committee that goes on about vegetarian and vegan food for its catering at events every time we meet. I gently object but get a mixture of smiles and awkward moments back, and am then ignored.
I was at a conference at the Royal College of Physicians a couple of weeks ago. All vegan food. Absolutely banging. Best food I’ve had at an event for many years.
Then, you are in a small minority.
Most of the physicians will eat anything but outside of work. Like celebrating IWD, LGBT+ history month and BHM this is just something that all organisations now feel they ought to be doing and promoting.
Everyone else there seemed to agree the food was great. But, if you’re worried, my post wasn’t a general call for more vegan food. It was more a review of the RCP catering. If you need a conference venue in London, ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ to the RCP.
I'm actually currently involved in trying to import stock from the UK to Australia for a small business.I have no useful insights other than the Houthis are a pain in the arse. Our stuff is floating about in the Med.
Generally, it does seem a bit mad to import beef (bad for emissions) around the world (bad for emissions) from Australia (very bad for emissions). From a UK perspective, cattle can be quite good for the local environment, chewing up the ground, eating a variety of veg, better than sheep for wetland development. The RSPB use them on their reserves for this reason, IIRC.
It's not like the UK sustains itself on beef though, so there isn't much of a national security angle on this.
The cost, in terms of greenhouse gases, of shifting shit around the world is remarkably low, especially relative to all the other emissions that come from farming cattle. I would be staggered if Australian beef generated more than a couple of percent more than British ones. And, indeed, if they require less feed (because they can eat grass all year round), then they might generate less.
Comments
Starmer’s team coached for government over dinners with top Whitehall figures
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/mar/17/starmers-team-coached-for-government-over-dinners-with-top-whitehall-figures
...Patrick Vallance, the former chief scientific adviser who helped guide the government through the pandemic, as well as former New Labour cabinet ministers James Purnell and Patricia Hewitt, are among those to have attended a series of informal dinners designed to brief Labour frontbenchers on life in government. Former Blair-era adviser Sarah Hunter has also attended.
With Labour still enjoying a double-digit lead in the polls, Starmer’s most senior advisers remain obsessed with guarding against complacency as the election draws nearer. However, the growing likelihood of a Labour-led government has seen shadow ministers step up their preparations for power.
The dinners have been chaired by Baroness Sally Morgan, one of Tony Blair’s key advisers at the height of New Labour’s popularity. They have also been attended by Sue Gray, the Whitehall veteran who is now Starmer’s chief of staff...
Trump: Now, If I don't get elected, it's gonna be a bloodbath. It's going to be a bloodbath for the country.
https://x.com/Acyn/status/1769102618213638350?s=20
But what we need nationally is new towns, not to build over London's green belt in an already overheated region of the most economically unbalanced country in Europe.
Austrian Railways (ÖBB, www.oebb.at) open bookings up to 6 months ahead, including international trains and their Nightjet sleeper trains. However, for international routes to/from Austria it depends on their partner railway. ÖBB's Paris-Vienna, Brussels-Vienna & Amsterdam-Vienna Nightjet sleepers may only open for booking 2-4 months ahead. see https://www.seat61.com/european-train-booking-horizons.htm
BREAKING: Elon Musk says that there is either a “red wave” this November or America is doomed.
7:55 PM · Mar 16, 2024
·
1.3M
Views
https://x.com/LeadingReport/status/1769090230101914041?s=20
It's usually quite difficult to crowbar any unpaid tax from some tradesmen..
“We’ve done absolutely everything possible to lose the next election. We’ve gone nuclear” - veteran Tory
Why it was this week - perhaps the worst yet for Sunak - when the penny properly dropped for many Conservative MPs
“Something has changed for me”
At the risk of invoking Godwin's law, Trump's less militant supporters remind me of those middle class, and upper working class, Germans who voted for the NSDAP, or other nationalist parties, and favoured coalition with the NSDAP, not because they were virulently anti-semitic, but because they thought the party would restore order, and Germany's place in the world. What they got was a government that was completely lawless, and led the country to ruin.
The world needs him to drop dead . Indeed I could see mass celebrations if that did happen.
Not ordinary people who live in urban cities. But you knew that.
"Tensions are rising within team Keir Starmer | Andrew Marr | The New Statesman", March 15, 2024, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZuvXpejJdE
And, wilfully so. Still, you got a few reflexive likes out of it - so I'm sure you're happy.
I've no idea what would change attitudes here, it would likely require something like a major natural disaster or world war. The possibility of it changing due to politics and governance is nil, as no party proposes construction at the scale necessary to make a real difference, as they know that to do so would make them unelectable. "Vote for me and you house will lose value, both relatively and in absolute terms."
I take that entirely seriously. And there are plenty of other countries around the world who've done similar things in the past, and suffered gravely for it.
From that, all things follow.
One of the best things I've done is come off Twitter.
And the Corbynista plan was to nationalise things - any future government isn't going to be doing that - it's going to be finding every penny it can find to pay for immediate spending because things are rapidly falling apart....
- Not in keeping with the local vernacular
- Trees would need to be felled
- Drainage during heavy rain
- Affects sight lines along rooftops
- Increased traffic
- No parking spaces
- Gentrification driving locals out
- Was a pub (that nobody went in and has been closed for years)
- Mews should be kept for traditional light industry
I shouldn’t complain really. We benefited from a very aggressive nimby campaign because our current house had been bought as a derelict shell by a business who wanted to turn it into a nursery. The locals were up in arms and the application failed. The owners then sold it on, to us.
https://www.politicshome.com/news/article/the-penny-has-dropped-for-many-tory-mps
As one put it: “We need to rip the plaster off now because it is only going to get worse. It’s going to be an ever-increasing narrative of shit.”
Firstly, there's been a convergence in attitudes there, not a divergence - the Red Wall represents rural/semi-rural seats that'd be reliably Tory in the South were it not for the coal-mining legacy - and, secondly, the Conservative offer of low taxes, low immigration, fiscal responsibility, stable government and strong defence has been one that, nominally, has been consistent since 2010 and before.
It's just they haven't delivered.
Some of that is bad luck. Much more is poor quality candidates, flawed leaders and terrible behaviour.
As one put it: “We need to rip the plaster off now because it is only going to get worse. It’s going to be an ever-increasing narrative of shit.”
*And hope no more volcanoes go off.
The volcano thing is a climate denier meme that needs to be squashed every few years.
Please forgive me if I find that slightly too dull to engage with.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/England_Your_England#:~:text="In intention, at any rate,of island of dissident thought.
I am a member of a committee that goes on about vegetarian and vegan food for its catering at events every time we meet. I gently object but get a mixture of smiles and awkward moments back, and am then ignored.
...
Justice secretary Alex Chalk is said to have warned Rishi Sunak that the overcrowding crisis could soon trigger a wave of riots.
Tornado squads were deployed 13 times in prisons last year alone, more than any year since at least 2018 and up from a mid-Covid low of just four times in 2021, a series of parliamentary questions by Labour has uncovered.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/prison-riot-officers-crisis-tornado-squad-b2511981.html
Broken Britain. Politically significant too that Labour is on the case. (As an aside, most violent incidents are in women's prisons; you can make your own jokes about trans inmates.)
One problem with vegan food is that good vegan food isn't cheap
How Donald Trump Uses Humor to Make the Outrageous Sound Normal
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/03/17/how-donald-trump-uses-humor-to-make-the-outrageous-sound-normal-00146119
But - that requires getting rid of the functions that they've invented to bolster their existence that are no good to man nor beast, rather than just shooting them all out of hand.
Lib Dem leader Sir Ed Davey tells the party’s spring conference that Rishi Sunak “sounds like he’s already given up” and that setting the election date is “pretty much the only thing left” that he controls anymore.
So we have all learned something today, so it was a good day.
To those who see it as an excuse to get shitfaced on cheap Guinness, get a grip.
https://twitter.com/DanNeidle/status/1769330427255267808
I suspect the reality is that people think they are being taxed too much already and so they don't want it spent on anything.
Which probably comes down to the fact that we seem to being taxed an awful lot but it's not at all obvious where the money is actually going and being spent...
Perhaps you mean carbon dioxide?
(Sorry, a pet hate of mine.)
Not bad odds if I am right that everybody is sick of the 2 main parties
If the electorate are SKS fans Ashfield is a home run for red Tories
Anything but people don't like it and don't want it.
People just don’t want to accept how much this stuff costs.
Most of the physicians will eat anything but outside of work. Like celebrating IWD, LGBT+ history month and BHM this is just something that all organisations now feel they ought to be doing and promoting.
https://news.sky.com/story/politics-latest-uk-politics-sunak-starmer-general-election-vote-labour-tories-speaker-sky-news-politics-hub-12593360?postid=7397227#liveblog-body
If they are feeling pressure from Reform, this fact check on stopping boats IS excellent soundbite to keep using everywhere in April campaigning, leaflets, doorsteps, media ads, HoC, interviews.
I still think Rishi will call the general Election campaign for 2nd May, any day this week. Who’s 100% sure he won’t?
(Sarcasm here) you are telling me that £174 per house isn't enough to pay all the costs...
But there is a wider point here - the visible things that councils / Government are known to be responsible for seem to be falling apart yet the amount we spend on tax is continually going up yet papers talk about further cuts...